Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the right honourable John Dugdale, Member for West Bromwich, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the right honourable Member.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (BOLTON) BILL

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Handicapped Persons

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Labour if he will consult local authorities and other interested bodies, with a view to launching a drive to provide adequate training and employment opportunities for mentally and physically handicapped persons.

The Minister of Labour (Mr. John Hare): I understand that the hon. Member is concerned about the adequacy of sheltered employment facilities for severely disabled persons. These facilities are provided by Remploy and by a number of local authorities and voluntary bodies, with financial assistance from my Department. Plans are being made for two more workshops in Scotland and the need for additional facilities is kept under review. If the hon.

Member will let me have details of any particular problems he has in mind I will certainly consider them.

Mr. Dempsey: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is not the same enthusiasm among local authorities for this type of service as is evident for other services in different parts of the country? Will he appoint someone in his Department to try to raise enthusiasm for this lofty project so that these unfortunate people not only have training facilities but will be able to look forward to a life of employment?

Mr. Hare: I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman says, but he knows that two establishments were opened last year at Falkirk and Mother-well. I hope that other local authorities in Scotland will follow that example, where there is a need for additional facilities. I trust that hon. Members on both sides will do all that they can to stimulate local authorities to move in this direction.

Wigan

Mr. Fitch: asked the Minister of Labour how many unemployed were registered at the Wigan Employment Exchange at the latest convenient date.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. William White-law): 2,627 at 11th February.

Mr. Fitch: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the considerable concern in Wigan and district about the lack of employment prospects? How many of the more than 2,000 unemployed are wholly unemployed? Will the hon. Gentleman contact the President of the Board of Trade with a view to encouraging new industries to come to Wigan and district?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what the hon. Gentleman says about my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade. Just under 2,000 of the figure I gave were wholly unemployed, and a considerable number of them were in construction work. We hope that these people will soon be back at work.

Weston-super-Mare

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage of unemployment at the latest date in the area served by the Weston-super-Mare employment exchange.

Mr. Whitelaw: 6·7 per cent. at 11th February.

Mr. Webster: Is my hon. Friend aware that with the curtailing of a Government contract for Messrs. Henly, this ceases to be a seasonal problem? Is he further aware that the factory concerned is not permitted to obtain non-Government contracts while this contract is being run down?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure that he will be the first to appreciate that this is a matter for the firm to negotiate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War. I will certainly see that my right hon. Friend's attention is drawn to what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Labour what is the figure for unemployment amongst school leavers and young people in the area served by the Weston-super-Mare employment exchange at the last convenient date.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 11th February, 99 boys and girls, including 18 school leavers, were registered for employment.

Mr. Webster: Were all of the 18 school leavers Christmas school leavers?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes, Sir.

Training Centres

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour what is the annual average cost per pupil place in his Department's training centres; and what he estimates will be the capital cost per pupil place in providing new centres.

Mr. Hare: The average annual running cost of the centres is at present approximately £385 per place excluding, and £820 per place including, the cost of the allowances, fares, etc. of trainees. The capital cost of providing new centres varies greatly according to location, availability of premises and the trades to be taught, and it is impracticable to make a general estimate.

Miss Quennell: In view of the recently announced expansion of training centres, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the pattern of workshop specification which the Minister of Education uses when planning technical colleges, which perform very much the same sort of work?

Mr. Hare: I can assure my hon. Friend that I keep in close touch with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Does my hon. Friend agree that especially in areas where existent industries are contracting there will be a great need for skilled labour and that the economy, as it expands, will demand more skilled labour? Will my right hon. Friend try to ensure that there is a rapid extension of training in Government centres?

Mr. Hare: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I am sure that there will be a need for an extension of training in Government centres, and I can assure both him and the House that I have the matter very much in mind.

Miss Quennell: asked the Minister of Labour what recognised syllabus/ curriculum is pursued by industrial trainees in his Department's training centres; and what is the wastage figure.

Mr. Hare: Each of the 38 training trades has its own detailed syllabus prepared by my specialist technical stall in consultation with both sides of industry.
Wastage was 22·7 per cent. in 1962, over a third being on grounds of ill health, mainly among disabled trainees.

Miss Quennell: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is no hard and fast line between technical education and industrial training, and that when he frames his proposals for legislation, as he shortly must do, a great deal of frustration, expense and vexation would be avoided if he could follow the established practice of the release of apprentices to the technical colleges, which is running very satisfactorily?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that there are any simple answers to what my hon.


Friend has in mind. She will, of course, have read the White Paper, which makes it quite clear that I am discussing these proposals, not only with both sides of industry, but with my other colleagues in the Government, of whom my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is a very important one.

Mr. Spriggs: asked the Minister of Labour how many Ministry of Labour training centres exist; where they are situated; what is the capacity of the training centre in the Merseyside area; and how many young people from St. Helens, Lancashire, attend it.

Mr. Hare: There are 13 Government training centres, situated at Newcastle, Leeds, Letchworth, Slough, Enfield, Perivale, Croydon, Bristol, Cardiff, Birmingham, Leicester, Liverpool and Glasgow. Two hundred and ninety-four places, including 24 for apprentices, are available at the Liverpool centre. One young person from St. Helens attends that centre.

Mr. Spriggs: I understand that the Minister said that one young person from St. Helens is attending the Liverpool training centre. What are we to do about the other 422 boys and girls who are receiving no training? Is the Minister aware that out of the total of almost 3,000 unemployed in St. Helens, the great bulk are unskilled people? If these youngsters are not given a chance to train for a trade, they, too, will join the ranks of the unemployed when the unskilled worker is least wanted. What is the right hon. Gentleman doing through his Department to provide proper training schemes for the unemployed boys and girls?

Mr. Hare: As I have told the House, I am considering proposals for extending training facilities. Certainly, the needs of St. Helens will be considered together with the Liverpool area as a whole. I know that the journey is 12 miles, but we must try to locate these places to serve the greatest possible area and for the greatest convenience of people in the area.

Mr. K. Lewis: In view of the urgency of industrial training, on which both sides of the House are agreed, will my right hon. Friend say whether he has any specific plans for expansion for the future generally?

Mr. Hare: Yes. I have said that I am considering a programme for further expansion of training facilities. I will announce it when I have the plans ready.

Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Minister give an assurance that when these people have been retrained, they will be provided with employment?

Mr. Hare: I am hopeful that the employment situation will improve.

Immigrants (Work Vouchers)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour how many immigrant work permits are outstanding; for how long they are available; if he will refuse to issue any more until the unemployment figure is below 400,000 in order to give British workers the first chance of jobs; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hare: The number of vouchers outstanding is about 20,000. A voucher is valid for six months from the date of issue, though this period may be extended up to one year where good reason is shown. As regards the last part of the Question, I would refer my hon. Friend to the Answer I gave him on 7th March.

Sir C. Osborne: Does not my right hon. Friend think that it is completely barmy for British Railways to be sacking men in this country because it has no work for them and at the same time to be recruiting men in the West Indies to work on the railways here? In view of the fact that he will be nagged at all afternoon to find jobs for men in various constituencies, is it not stupid to let more men come here?

Mr. Hare: I must remind my hon. Friend of the intention of the legislation that we passed on this subject. We are controlling the issue of vouchers very carefully, and a large number of applicants have been told that they will have to wait before they can get a voucher. I must remind my hon. Friend that the Act is intended to control immigration and not to stop it altogether.

Mr. Prentice: Will the Minister confirm that the number of immigrants from the Commonwealth declined steeply during the latter part of last year as unemployment in this country rose, thus


establishing a relationship which we on this side of the House said would exist in any case?

Mr. Hare: I do not know about "exist in any case". What the hon. Gentleman has said is true in that far fewer people are coining in for jobs this year than before the Act came into being. This is partly due to the fact that we have these powers and partly due to what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Sir C. Osborne: Surely the fall in the number of immigrants coming into this country is due completely to the Act.

Mr. Hare: I have said that I think that it is a combination of the two factors mentioned.

Sunderland (Young People)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour what is the number of unemployed young people registered at the three Sunderland employment exchanges in Sunderland, Pallion and Southwick.

Mr. Whitelaw: As I told my hon. Friend on 4th February, young people do not register at these exchanges. On 11th February, 567 boys and 189 girls were registered at the Sunderland County Borough and Sunderland (North East) Youth Employment Bureaux minus Seaham.

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour whether he will state the percentage of unemployed young people in Sunderland, taking into account only those young people resident in the County Borough of Sunderland.

Mr. Whitelaw: I must refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to his own Question on 4th February.

Mr. Williams: Cannot my hon. Friend find ways and means of issuing the figures for the three exchanges in the County Borough of Sunderland, lest the position is confused by taking in people from far outside the county borough boundaries?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be the first to appreciate, on the somewhat narrower point that he has made, that this would involve a considerable amount of extra work. I know that my hon. Friend is a great watch-dog of public expenditure and I do not think he would want this disproportionate amount of work to be undertaken.

Sheffield (Young People)

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Labour how many young persons are registered as unemployed in Sheffield; how many school leavers have failed to find employment since mid-1962; and what facilities, for which he is responsible, exist in Sheffield for the industrial or commercial training of unemployed youngsters.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 11th February, 417 young persons were registered; 36 of these were Christmas leavers and one was an Easter 1962 leaver. The Department does not provide training courses at Sheffield but there are opportunities at colleges of further education in the city for young people to follow courses which will prepare them for industry and commerce.

Mr. Darling: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the number of unemployed young persons in Sheffield is in fact growing and that there is serious concern in this city about the facilities available for them for industrial training? Is he also aware that in an industrial city like Sheffield the industries depend upon skilled craftsmen, and that we cannot afford to waste even potential craftsmen to the number of 417, and training facilities ought to be provided in industry?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that one would be bound to agree with the hon. Gentleman on the great value of training facilities in industry, and I am sure that the industrialists of Sheffield are not slow to appreciate that. School leavers are not the whole problem, for by the middle of February only 3 per cent. of the 1,353 Christmas school leavers were still registered as unemployed.

Scotland

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Labour what is the total number of persons over and under 18, respectively, registering as unemployed, in March, 1961, 1962, and 1963, respectively, in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: On 13th March, 1961, 69,037 people aged 18 or over and 3,170 aged under 18 were registered as unemployed compared with 75,759 and 4,468 respectively on 12th March, 1962. The figures for March, 1963, are not yet available.

Mr. Dempsey: Will not the Minister agree that this is a serious state of affairs? Is it not about time that he drew the attention of the Prime Minister to the scandalous unemployment situation in Scotland? Would he consider, for example, asking the Prime Minister to call a conference of all the Ministers involved, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the President of the Board of Trade, the Secretary of State for Scotland and the spending Ministers, with a view to getting both orders and new industries into Scotland, and thus tackling this serious problem in a realistic fashion?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Government take very seriously the whole problem of unemployment in Scotland. He knows perfectly well, for instance, that the Prime Minister has seen the Scottish T.U.C., the Scottish Council and the Secretary of State for Scotland, together with my other right hon. Friends who have responsibility in this field. They are, of course, doing all that they can to improve the situation.

Mr. Woodburn: Is it not the case that the Government knew that the railways were going to close down and that they appointed Dr. Beeching for the purpose? Is it not the case that they knew that the mines were going to close down, and that they knew that shipbuilding was going into decline, and why have they waited until the last moment to try to remedy all that?

Mr. Hare: The answer is that it is quite true that the contraction of the older industries has caused a greater loss of jobs than the production of new jobs. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, a considerable effort has been made to provide new jobs. We want to see that the effort is increased very considerably in order to deal with that wastage in the older industries of which the right hon. Gentleman has been talking.

Bishop Auckland

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many workers are unemployed in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area; and how many of these are being or are about to be retrained.

Mr. Whitelaw: On 11th February, 1963, there were 4,504 unemployed in the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area. Twenty-two persons from this area are

in training under Government vocational training schemes, six are awaiting training and 11 applications are under consideration.

Mr. Boyden: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is the thirteenth successive month in which the unemployment figures have increased? Is he further aware that these training figures are pitiable? Will he consider locating a Government training centre in Bishop Auckland and taking similar steps to retrain at least some of the men?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend will be extremely glad to know that he has the support of the hon. Member for the expansion of adult retraining. The hon. Member will also know that a new training centre is being set up at Tursdale which, I think, will serve the Bishop Auckland travel-to-work area. In reply to the hon. Member's comment about the figures going up for 13 months, let us hope that they will go down in the fourteenth.

Mr. Ainsley: In view of the figures which have been given for the Bishop Auckland area, which includes Crook and the whole of the West, will the Minister now reconsider his decision on the restriction at Tursdale to take in only 24 trainees when he can make full use of the Brancepeth Camp scheme, which could be enlarged and would meet the needs of the problem in the West?

Mr. Whitelaw: The hon. Member is not entirely correct in mentioning a figure of only 24 for Tursdale. That figure refers to apprenticeship training, but there are training places planned at Tursdale for 98 adults.

Mr. Boyden: Has the Minister any idea of the travelling difficulties for people in places like Copley, Evenwood and West Auckland to travel to work to Tursdale?

Mr. Whitelaw: Yes. As I know that part of the world and come from not far from it, I certainly have.

Barnard Castle and Middleton-in-Teesdale

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Labour how many workers are unemployed in the Barnard Castle and Middleton-in-Teesdale areas; and what prospects there are of their being reemployed shortly.

Mr. Whitelaw: Four hundred and thirty on 11th February. I understand that employers in the area hope shortly to re-employ some of the men stood off owing to bad weather.

Mr. Boyden: How long must the figure remain at something like 11 per cent. before the Minister recommends the area as a development district?

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade will certainly note what the hon. Member has said. It is fair to point out concerning these figures that a large number of the unemployed were temporarily stopped, due mainly to the weather. My local knowledge of the area, which lies between the hon. Member's constituency and my own, makes me realise that it is more subject to severe weather than many other places.

Mr. Boyden: Is the Minister aware that he must travel in all these parts with a motor car?

Redundant Employees (Financial Assistance)

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Minister of Labour if he will introduce legislation to ensure that private firms provide special funds for financial assistance to redundant employees.

Mr. Hare: Methods of improving arrangements for dealing with redundancy are being studied by my Ministry and by the employers, nationalised industries and trade unions on my National Joint Advisory Council. The subject will be discussed at the next meeting of the Council in April. At this stage I do not want to prejudge the best ways of handling this problem.

Mr. Roberts: Does not the Minister appreciate that it is when an industry is enjoying good times that money should be put away to meet future redundancy? Is he aware that many industries which are making a profit are prepared to do this and to dissociate the funds from their own companies?

Mr. Hare: As I have told the hon. Member, I am studying this problem. It is a very big one. There are all sorts of views upon it and I want to find the answers. I hope that I shall have considerable assistance from both sides in

industry in the deliberations on which I have embarked.

Mr. Webster: Are not severance payments by the individual firms concerned the most appropriate method of dealing with the problem?

Mr. Hare: Not necessarily. There is the obvious disadvantage that smaller firms in particular which are in financial difficulty will not have the necessary money. That is exactly one of the aspects which must be considered.

Mr. Marsh: In recognising all the difficulties, may I ask whether there is any reason why at least all Government Departments cannot make a start in providing redundancy agreements for their own employees? Whatever the problems for the private employer, at least the Government could surely give a lead.

Mr. Hare: The nationalised industries give the very sort of lead that the hon. Member has in mind.

Mr. Gunter: Is the Minister aware that this matter has been under consideration for a very long time? In view of its urgency, will he expedite the discussions which he is having with both sides of industry on this matter and give us a report and let us know what he is doing as quickly as possible?

Mr. Hare: As the hon. Member knows, I am not very good at making promises. He also knows, however, that I am fairly impatient in these matters. [Interruption.] That is not true. I think I have carried out every promise which I have given as Minister of Labour. I assure the hon. Member that I shall not delay unnecessarily.

Mr. Roberts: Will the Minister be prepared to accept information from me?

Mr. Hare: I am always prepared to accept information.

Construction Sites (Accidents)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether a study has been made by the Factory Inspectorate of the reasons for the 8½ per cent. increase in accidents on construction sites last year; what reasons have emerged; what steps he is taking to try to reverse this trend; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Hare: This percentage is based on provisional figures which have not yet been analysed. A full analysis will be published later in the year in the Report of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Factories for 1962. I am doing everything I can to increase interest and activity in safety matters.

Mr. Prentice: In the study that is being given to this serious situation, will the Minister consider the frequency with which each building site or construction site is inspected? Will he study the relationship between the rate of inspections and the incidence of accidents, this being one matter which is within his control, so that he can study whether an increase in the Factory Inspectorate for this type of site would have an effect on the accident trend?

Mr. Hare: I certainly am considering every effective means. The hon. Member knows, however, that under our recent construction regulations, a big move forward will take effect this year whereby safety instructors and supervisors have to be made available where not less than 20 people are employed, as against the old regulations which did not become effective until 50 people were employed.

Mr. Loveys: Is it not true that the building industry is providing many more safety training courses?

Mr. Hare: That is true. It is an indication of what I said earlier. Far more general interest in this matter is, very rightly, being shown. I am glad to say that something like double the number of safety training courses are now being organised within the industry itself. This is a very good sign.

Workers (Free Railway Vouchers)

Mr. K. Lewis: asked the Minister of Labour the cost to his Department of providing free railway vouchers to workers employed away from their home areas who need to travel home for domestic reasons.

Mr. Hare: In 1962, the arrangements for assisted home visits cost my Department about £5,400, and for emergency visits just over £700.

Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is my view that he need

not be inhibited in any way in asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer for a substantial increase in the sum available for this purpose, since British Railways are being subsidised at the rate of more than £100 million a year and the amount of money that would be spent on these fares would, therefore, be a purely paper transaction? At the same time, if more money were to be made available, young men could come from other parts of the country to where work is available and go back home.

Mr. Hare: I know my hon. Friend's feelings on this subject, but he will, I think, remember that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary told him last month that I was considering increasing the number of assisted fares. But I probably would not go quite as far or as fast as my hon. Friend would like me to do.

Scotland (Agriculture, Mining and Quarrying)

Mr. Willis: asked the Minister of Labour what estimate he has made of the number of jobs lost in agriculture, mining and quarrying in Scotland in the second half of 1962.

Mr. Hare: The only reliable and comprehensive figures for these industries in Scotland are those derived from changes in the numbers employed and relate to the middle of the year. Later changes can be estimated only for manufacturing industries. Between mid-1961 and mid-1962, however, there was a fall of about 3,000 in agriculture and horticulture and 6,700 in mining and quarrying.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if the rate continues for the period mentioned in the Question, then the number of jobs lost during the last six months of last year alone will be about 15,000? When are the Government going to do something for Scotland in order to try to compensate for this?

Mr. Hare: In answer to a previous Question I said that it was the Government's intention to do all they can to ensure that new industry is attracted to Scotland, that Scotland gets a far greater diversification and becomes less dependent on its older industries.

Mr. Stodart: Would my right lion. Friend agree, particularly with his Knowledge and experience of the agricultural industry, that agriculture, and particularly agriculture in Scotland, has never been in a higher state of efficiency despite its shortage of manpower?

Mr. Hare: Yes, Sir; I believe that to be true.

Mr. Willis: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as a result of the Government's efforts we got only 9,000 new jobs last year, and if we lose jobs at the rate of 15,000 in six months, that is a very small contribution?

Mr. Hare: That is precisely why the Government want to do all they can to increase the provision of new jobs.

Kincardine Power Station (Disputes)

Mr. Woodburn: asked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement about the labour disputes which have held up work on the new section of the Kincardine Power Station; and what was their duration and extent.

Mr. Hare: According to my information there have been seven unofficial stoppages during the three years the new section has been under construction. Their duration has varied from four days to eight weeks and about 4,200 working days have been lost.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the chief engineer seemed to attribute the delay in completing the station to these labour stoppages, but, as my information is that it was due to technical troubles and growing pains in the installation of the machinery, is it not right that when statements are made a fair picture should be given and that there should not be this continual effort to accuse the workers of being responsible for all delays?

Mr. Hare: I am all for fair accounts being given, but, obviously, these stoppages contributed to the delay in the building of the station. The right hon. Gentleman will have realised that from the answer which I have given. He also knows, however, that I have been concerned about the troubles that have taken place on these large construction sites. I have, therefore, asked the employers and the trade unions in the industry to

get together with me to see whether we can work out better arrangements for dealing with the complaints and troubles which are so often associated with large construction sites.

Oldham

Mr. Mapp: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of wholly unemployed in the Oldham area for the latest available date this year, the comparable figure for last year, and the number of vacancies available at the same dates.

Mr. Whitelaw: At the Oldham and Chadderton Employment Exchange, 1,488 workers were registered as wholly unemployed on 11th February and 984 in February, 1962; the corresponding numbers of unfilled vacancies notified to the Exchange were 199 and 683.

Mr. Mapp: As the figures will exclude temporarily suspended workers and many married women, is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures that he has given represent about a 50 per cent. increase in those of last year and an increase of about 120 per cent. on those for the year before? In view of that and the depressed condition of the textile industry, would the Parliamentary Secretary suggest to the Minister that he might have a word with both the President of the Board of Trade and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and point out that a combination, possibly, of Purchase Tax reduction and some alleviation of import difficulties might be helpful to the industry and to the unemployment situation?

Mr. Whitelaw: I would point out to the hon. Gentleman that, as I am sure he appreciates, the largest increase was in the construction industry and we all have our reasonable hopes there. Nevertheless, all the right hon. Gentlemen whom the hon. Gentleman mentioned will certainly take note of what he has said.

Bowhill and Kelty

Mr. W. Hamilton: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the increased unemployment in the Central West Fife area, the consequent overcrowding of existing employment exchanges, and the travelling costs falling on those unemployed, he will consider opening further exchanges at Bowhill and Kelty.

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend hopes to provide temporary offices at Bowhill and Kelty next week.

Mr. Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in one way we are grateful for this but in so far as it is a reflection on the Government's inability to solve the unemployment problem it is highly unsatisfactory? Is he aware that unemployment in Fife generally has gone up 93 per cent. in the last eight months, and very much more than that in the mining areas, and it is likely to get worse? In those circumstances, will not he and the Government take adequate steps to obviate the need to extend the facilities of employment exchanges?

Mr. Whitelaw: I am glad that I have satisfied the hon. Gentleman in doing what he was asking about. As to his wider remarks, I think he knows as well as anyone else the many steps which are being taken to improve the unemployment position.

Mr. Bence: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us how many new jobs are likely to be created by the extension of employment exchanges in Scotland?

Mr. Hamilton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the estimate for expenditure under the Local Employment Act for 1963–64 is about half the estimate for the previous year? How on earth can he expect to solve the unemployment problem and, therefore, obviate the need for expanding employment exchange facilities in these circumstances?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think the hon. Gentleman would be the first to agree that his remarks go very much wider than the Question he put to me.

Mexborough

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Labour how many adults, at the latest available date, were unemployed in the Mexborough employment exchange area.

Mr. Whitelaw: 1,245.

Mr. Wainwright: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that these figures are very disturbing? Is there any possibility of the area being scheduled under the Local Employment Act? If so, is the hon. Gentleman aware that we shall

want a new pipeline in the district, one which Ministers will go through to make sure that jobs are kept flowing until the unemployment problem is solved?

Mr. Whitelaw: I will note what the hon. Gentleman has said. I should not like his idea to be followed through because, in my case, the pipe would have to be a rather big one.

Mr. Wainwright: asked the Minister of Labour how many youths under the age of 18 years, at the latest available date, were unemployed in the Mexborough employment exchange area.

Mr. Whitelaw: 95 boys on 11th February.

Mr. Wainwright: This also is a rather shocking state of affairs. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the youths in the Dearne Valley district are becoming more frustrated day by day, week by week? When are the Government going to do something to make certain that the youths not only of Dearne Valley but of south Yorkshire and the whole country will be able to look forward with some promise to having a job in the future? I hope that the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary will do more about this issue than they are doing at the present time.

Mr. Whitelaw: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I hope that increasing opportunities for young people will come in the months ahead. Certainly, everything possible will be done to ensure that they do.

Stoke Newington and Hackney

Mr. Weitzman: asked the Minister of Labour if he has received the resolution of the Stoke Newington Borough Council, drawing attention to its grave concern at the substantial increase in the number of unemployed in the area of Stoke Newington and Hackney; and what action he proposes to take.

Mr. Whitelaw: My right hon. Friend has received the resolution and he is aware of the rise in unemployment in this area. The particular points raised by the council are the concern of the Treasury and the Board of Trade to whom copies of the resolution have been sent.

Mr. Weitzman: Now that the problem of unemployment is really serious in London, will the Minister accept the advice in the words of this resolution:
… urge the Government to take immediate measures to effect an acceleration of trade in industries in which there is large-scale unemployment by increasing trade with the Commonwealth and Eastern Europe and removing Purchase Tax on all household goods and furniture."?

Mr. Whitelaw: I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman would be the first to agree that his supplementary question goes somewhat wider than anything for which I have Vie responsibility for replying. Copies of the resolution have been sent to the Ministers concerned, and it will be carefully noted.

Mr. Weitzman: I am only asking the hon. Gentleman to urge the Government to do something. Surely he can do that?

Mr. Whitelaw: If it were necessary I could, but it is not necessary.

Apprenticeships and Training Boards

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour in what skilled trades there is a shortage; for which craft apprenticeships it is intended to train more workers; what was the increase in apprenticeships last year; by how many it is intended to increase the number of apprentices this year; what is the purpose of the suggested training boards; and what is the estimated annual expenditure on the implementation of the Carr Report and other ancillary proposals of his department.

Mr. Hare: For several years past there have been general shortages of draughts-men and of skilled workers in the main engineering, vehicle building, construction and woodworking occupations. Although they have eased during the past year these shortages will again become serious with a revival of economic activity. The number of apprentices taken on results from the decisions made by individual employers. 7,500 more young people entered apprenticeships in 1962 than in 1961. Without establishing a precise target I expect the increased numbers to be maintained in future. The purpose of the training boards is to improve the quality and

share more evenly the burden of training, and to relate the numbers trained more realistically to long-term needs. The implementation of the Carr Report proposals lay primarily with industry but the Government has made a grant-in-aid of £75,000 to the Industrial Training Council to assist the development of training.

Training Courses

Mr. Ellis Smith: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the number of skilled men unemployed and the few vacancies for them shown in the Ministry of Labour Gazette of February, 1963, he will cancel the proposed training in the occupation of pottery, platers, welders, fitters, woodworkers and patternmakers and moulders.

Mr. Hare: There are no courses in pottery, plating, patternmaking or moulding at Government Training Centres. There are long established classes in welding, fitting and woodworking. There are not at present as many vacancies as normally in these trades but the training programme is geared to likely future demands. The long-term interests of the economy require an increase rather than a decrease in training.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Has the right hon. Gentleman read the latest Ministry of Labour Gazette which states that in all the skilled trades to which he has referred the number of unemployed in each locality is three or four times the number of vacancies? What is the good of expenditure on effort of this kind if when they have been trained young men cannot be found employment?

Mr. Hare: I have the greatest respect for the hon. Member, who is a very experienced Member of this House, but I really cannot agree with a word of what he has just said. I refuse to be a prophet of woe. I believe that there will be future expansion in this country, and I believe, too, that expansion will not be possible unless we have the young men, and, indeed, the older men and women, trained in the skills required.

Mr. P. Williams: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that prosperity, and


the survival of prosperity, in this country, depends on producing greater and more accurate skills rather than on going in the opposite direction?

Mr. Hare: That is precisely my view.

Mr. Bence: Will the right hon. Gentleman look into the general qualities of apprenticeship training in many industries? Is he satisfied that boys who have served five years' apprenticeship have had adequate training in skills such as patternmaking? Is not inadequate training a contributing factor when they cannot get jobs?

Mr. Hare: I am by no means satisfied. One of the purposes of the new industrial training proposals is to look into that very point. I have put three questions to the main apprenticeship industries. First, are they satisfied with the quality and quantity of apprenticeship training, and if not, what are they going to do about it? Secondly, are they satisfied that the length of apprenticeship is the correct one'? Thirdly, are they satisfied with the existing arrangements, many of which were formed years ago?

Mr. R. W. Elliott: In addition to that, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind the need for the retraining of men from redundant industries, many of whom are often of quite advanced years? Is he aware of the success of the retraining centre set up by the E.E.C. in the Borinage area of Belgium, where miners have been retrained very successfully in a number of other skills?

Mr. Hare: I take note of what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, this is not merely a question of training the young but also of retraining older men who become redundant in industries which are running down.

Women (Childbirth)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Minister of Labour what representations have been made to him by trade unions or by the Trades Union Congress to introduce legislation restricting the employment of women for reward during the period following childbirth.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Minister of Labour what representations have been made to him about the need for amend-

ing legislation in regard to the employment of women after childbirth; and from which organisations they came.

Mr. Hare: In March, 1961, the Trades Union Congress asked for provision to be made in the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill, prohibiting the employment of women for seven weeks after childbirth.

Mrs. Hart: What representations has the right hon. Gentleman received in relation to the Private Member's Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel)? Has he received representations from women associated with the T.U.C. or from other women's organisations opposing it?

Mr. Hare: No. The representations I have received were from the T.U.C. It was thought that this matter would be better dealt with in the Bill introduced by my noble Friend than in the Government's Measure.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend accept the suggestion that, since a Bill which takes a great deal of understanding is likely to cause some concern, it would be more helpful if women Members on both sides of the House were consulted before it was introduced?

Mr. Hare: I am sure that my noble Friend will take note of what my hon. Friend says.

Employees (Personal Information)

Mrs. Hart: asked the Minister of Labour in what instances, in the implementation of legislation relating to factories and places of work, it is necessary for personal information to be supplied to employers by employees.

Mr. Hare: Under certain regulations for processes where there may be a risk of anthrax, the employee must report any cut or sore to his foreman. Under the Compressed Air and Diving Regulations, employees must report certain ailments to their employers. Under the Ionising Radiations (Sealed Sources) Regulations, new employees must in certain circumstances tell the employer of any previous employment involving exposure to ionising radiations.

Mrs. Hart: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Bill introduced by the noble Lord the Member for Hertford


(Lord Balniel) contains an entirely new element? Under it, it will be necessary for an employer to inquire into the private personal life of new women employees. Does not this represent a grave invasion of personal freedom? Would it not be as well if the right hon. Gentleman recognised that, by supporting the Measure, he is lending himself to legislation which, though supposed to protect women, is opposed by most women?

Mr. Hare: I did not know what the hon. Lady had in mind here. As far as I know, there will be no compulsion on the women concerned to reveal information they do not want to reveal.

Mrs. Hart: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that an employer will make himself liable to a fine unless he ensures that he is correctly informed, and that, therefore, there will be an element of compulsion on the employees to give such information?

Mr. Hare: There is a certain measure of dispute about the wording of the Bill but perhaps this is not the moment to go into that.

Shipbuilding Workers, East Anglia

Mr. Fell: asked the Minister of Labour how many shipbuilding workers in East Anglia are at present unemployed; and how many of these are registered at the Great Yarmouth Employment Exchange.

Mr. Hare: At 11th February, 165 and 11 respectively.

School Leavers, London Area

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many school leavers ate unemployed in the London area.

Mr. Hare: 430 in the Greater London area on 11th February.

Mr. Lipton: Does not this disturbing figure prove the serious impact of unemployment on the London area? Can it be wondered that there is so much juvenile delinquency when, on leaving school, so many boys and girls find that the opportunity to earn a living is denied to them?

Mr. Hare: The number of Christmas school leavers who registered for employ-

ment was 16,607 and only 411 have not yet been found jobs. I hope that we shall be able to place them.

Aberdeen

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Labour how many persons were unemployed in the City and County of Aberdeen at the latest date, according to trade, industry and sex; what steps he has taken during the last month to reduce those numbers; and how those figures compare with the unemployment figures in the same areas during each of the last 10 years.

Mr. Whitelaw: The reply to the first and last parts of the Question consists of tables of figures and I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The tables contain an analysis by industry and sex for February, 1963, and, for the earlier years, unemployment figures by sexes only. The analysis by industry is not readily available for previous years and I regret that it would involve a disproportionate amount of staff time to prepare.
Our local officers have continued their efforts to find employment for the workers who are registered.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that that is a very uninformative Answer and that he is therefore escaping the opportunity of my putting a supplementary question? Is he further aware that the figures are shocking and represent a terrible waste of human life? Will he consult the President of the Board of Trade and other Ministers with a view to finding some solution to this terrible problem in the north-east of Scotland, not the north-east of England?

Mr. Whitelaw: It was in order to give the hon. and learned Gentleman the maximum information that I adopted the method I did. It does not seem to have inhibited him in any way from asking a supplementary question. I note what he has said, as will my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.

Mr. Manuel: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us the number of draftsmen included in these figures for the shipbuilding industry? These men are valuable workers. What steps is the hon. Gentleman's


Department taking to see that they are employed to the benefit not only of the north-east of Scotland but to the rest of Britain?

INDUSTRIAL ANALYSIS OF THE NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN ABERDEEN AND THE REST OF ABERDEENSHIRE 11TH FEBRUARY, 1963


Industry
Aberdeen
Aberdeen County (excluding Aberdeen)


Males
Females
Total
Males
Females
Total


Agriculture and Horticulture
…
151
17
168
300
17
317


Fishing
…
166
—
166
299
—
299


Bacon curing, meat and fish products
…
88
49
137
132
123
255


Shipbuilding and ship repairing
405
3
408
26
1
27


Spinning and Doubling of cotton flax and man-made fibres
…
25
31
56
—
1
1


Bricks, Pottery, Glass, Cement, etc.
…
95
1
96
16
—
16


Timber
…
127
3
130
60
1
61


Construction
…
794
1
795
583
2
585


Sea Transport
…
154
—
154
27
—
27


Distributive Trades
…
371
242
613
98
80
178


Entertainment and Sport
…
63
16
79
4
3
7


Catering, Hotels, etc.
…
133
92
225
22
25
47


Private domestic service
…
12
34
46
6
57
63


Local Government Service
…
196
23
219
25
1
26


Other Industries and Services
…
924
336
1,260
296
166
462


Total, all Industries and Services
…
3,704
848
4,552
1,894
477
2,371

NUMBER OF PERSONS REGISTERED AS UNEMPLOYED AT EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES AND YOUTH EMPLOYMENT OFFICES IN ABERDEEN AND THE REST OF ABERDEENSHIRE AT THE UNDERMENTIONED DATES


Date
Aberdeen
Aberdeen County (excluding Aberdeen)


Male
Female
Total
Male
Female
Total


12th February, 1962
…
…
2,651
700
3,351
1,859
442
2,301


13th February, 1961
…
…
2,623
671
3,294
1,019
402
1,421


15th February, 1960
…
…
3,476
916
4,392
2,259
606
2,865


9th February, 1959
…
…
3,807
1,066
4,873
775
40
815


17th February, 1958
…
…
3,350
895
4,245
1,013
35
1,048


11th February, 1957
…
…
2,849
855
3,704
90
48
138


13th February, 1956
…
…
2,570
618
3,188
843
45
888


14th February, 1955
…
…
2,163
825
2,988
515
37
552


15th February, 1954
…
…
2,382
833
3,215
308
28
336


16th February, 1953
…
…
2,637
904
3,541
240
104
344


11th February, 1952
…
…
2,326
698
3,024
504
21
525

R.A.F. Station, Tangmere (Civilian Employees)

Mr. Loveys: asked the Minister of Labour what action he is taking to ensure that civilian employees made redundant by the change in status of the Royal Air Force station at Tangmere are able to find employment.

Mr. Whitelaw: I could not give the figure without notice but I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Following are the tables:

Mr. Whitelaw: I understand that there will be no redundancies before October. The Chichester employment exchange manager will arrange to register the employees concerned before they become redundant and will do everything possible to assist them to find other work.

Mr. Loveys: While thanking my hon. Friend, may I ask him to urge the


Minister of Labour to take the initiative and consult the Secretary of State for Air and the Minister of Aviation to see whether this fine airfield cannot be put to a more useful purpose and thus supply more employment than would be the case if it became a mere relief landing ground?

Mr. Whitelaw: I note what my hon. Friend says, but, a he will appreciate, this is a matter for the Secretary of State for Air. I can assure him that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the issues involved.

North Staffordshire

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the number of men and of women unemployed in north Staffordshire for the most recent month available.

Mr. Whitelaw: 7,510 men and 1,269 women at 1lth February, 1963.

Mrs. Slater: Does not the hon. Gentleman think that it is time that his right hon. Friend studied the situation in north Staffordshire where unemployment is continually on the upgrade? Does he appreciate that this is an area in which the number of unemployed women is much higher than appears to be the case, because, as so many women do not pay full insurance contributions and are therefore not registered, the employment exchange figures do not give the whole picture? Will the hon. Gentleman ask his right hon. Friend and the President of the Board of Trade to look at the whole area again?

Mr. Whitelaw: I can assure the hon. Lady that both my right hon. Friends will look very carefully at this area. The hon. Lady said that unemployment in the area has been on the upgrade. I very much hope that it will soon start to be on the downgrade.

Apprentices, Scotland

Mr. Lawson: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys engaged as apprentices and learners, respectively, in the iron and steel industry of Scotland, during each of the past three years.

Mr. Hare: Separate figures are not available for apprentices and learners.

The total numbers entering apprenticeships and learnerships were 355 in 1960, 431 in 1961 and 364 in 1962.

Mr. Lawson: As it is possible that the steel industry is the industry upon which Scotland's future most depends, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the present position is satisfactory? There has been a decline in the last year. Is he in touch with the industry and doing everything he can, and will he tell us what he is doing to stimulate the industry into recruiting more youngsters?

Mr. Hare: One can never be satisfied with these matters. I should like to see an improvement, but the House must realise that the overall apprenticeship situation in Scotland has improved. In 1962, the proportion of boys who obtained apprenticeships in all industries in Scotland was 38·9 per cent. compared with 36·2 per cent. in Great Britain as a whole.

Mr. Small: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys entering apprenticeships in the engineering and shipbuilding industry of Scotland during each of the past three years.

Mr. Hare: In engineering and shipbuilding, 2,055 boys entered apprenticeships in 1960, 2,509 in 1961 and 2,407 in 1962. The number of boys entering apprenticeships in all industries in Scotland has risen from 10,733 in 1960 to 14.077 in 1962.

Mr. Small: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the figures have been practically static over the period? Can he make some representations to the Board of Trade and similar Ministries with a view to encouraging an improvement in the shipbuilding industry?

Mr. Hare: There has been a fairly small decline in engineering and shipbuilding, but despite the difficulties which Scotland is facing, I am glad to say that the overall number of young people entering apprenticeships has increased.

Mr. J. Robertson: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys employed as apprentices in the railway vehicle and wagon building industry in each of the past three years; and what proportion of these was engaged in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: Figures are not available of the numbers employed as apprentices. The numbers who entered apprenticeships were 1,068 in 1960, 1,106 in 1961 and 853 in 1962. The proportions of these in Scotland were 4·3 per cent., 4·5 per cent. and 4·5 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Robertson: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the figures indicate that Scotland is not having its proper share of this manufacturing industry? Would he approach his right hon. Friends to see whether something cannot be done in this regard and to see whether Scotland cannot get back some of the work of building railway wagons and railway vehicles?

Mr. Hare: I will certainly see that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is made aware of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Steele: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys engaged as apprentices in the telegraph and telephone apparatus manufacturing industry of Great Britain in each of the past three years; and what proportion of these was engaged in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: In the telegraph and telephone apparatus manufacturing industry, 309 boys entered apprenticeships in 1960, 324 in 1961 and 242 in 1962. The proportions of these in Scotland were 1·0 per cent, 1·2 per cent. and 1·2 per cent., respectively.

Mr. Steele: Is not the right hon. Gentleman shocked by those figures? He has been telling us all afternoon that the Government would do all they could for Scotland. That has been his repeated cry. But while apprenticeships in the old industries have been going down, here is a new industry for which Scotland is getting only 1 per cent. of the apprentices. Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the President of the Board of Trade and the Treasury that that figure indicates a complete failure of the Distribution of Industry Act, and will he do something about it?

Mr. Hare: I do not think that it represents a failure of that sort. I have repeatedly said in the House, and I believe this to be the view of most hon. Members, that the Government want to see Scotland getting its all-round share of industries other than the merely traditional industries.

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys engaged as apprentices in scientific, surgical and photographic instruments industry in Great Britain in each of the past three years; and what proportion of these was employed in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: In the scientific, surgical and photographic instruments industry, 903 boys entered apprenticeships in 1960, 831 in 1961 and 822 in 1962. The proportions of these in Scotland were 4·8 per cent., 7·5 per cent., and 6·9 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Hannan: Do not these figures show that there is a great need for an expansion of this industry in Scotland? Can the Minister confirm or deny whether new jobs in this industry were included in the list which the Patronage Secretary said that he had in his pocket when he was addressing a meeting of Young Unionists in Glasgow recently?

Mr. Hare: I do not know that that supplementary question arises from this Question. I do not know what my right hon. Friend said, but I will study what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mrs. Cullen: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys engaged as apprentices in the industry for the production of man-made fibres in Great Britain during each of the past three years; and what proportion of those was engaged in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: In the production of manmade fibres 95 boys entered apprenticeships in 1960, 99 in 1961 and 76 in 1962. The proportions of these in Scotland were nil, 1 per cent. and nil respectively.

Mrs. Cullen: Do not the figures show that Scotland is not getting her fair share of these skilled trades? What proposals do the Government have for improving the prospects for young men in this growing industry?

Mr. Hare: It is true that Scotland has a very small share of this industry, but Scotland's share of shipbuilding, or marine engineering, is between 17 and 20 per cent. of the national total.

Mrs. Cullen: This happens to be a new industry.

Mr. Manuel: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys engaged as apprentices in the railway industry in Scotland in each of the past three years.

Mr. Hare: In the railway industry 43 boys entered apprenticeships in 1960, 47 in 1961 and 44 in 1962.

Mr. Manuel: Does not the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the significance of these very small figures? Could he break them down into even smaller figures showing the number recruited in each of the three years into the motive power grades? Should he not exercise his influence with the powers that be to ensure that we retain as much of the railway industry in Scotland as we can, so that the recruiting figures grow and do not fall into oblivion?

Mr. Hare: I will study what the hon. Gentleman has said and see whether I can give him a further breakdown on the lines he has suggested.

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys engaged as apprentices in the industry for the manufacture of radio and other electronic apparatus in each of the past three years and what proportion of those boys was engaged in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: In the manufacture of radio and other electronic apparatus 1,457 boys entered apprenticeships in 1960, 1,461 in 1961 and 1,539 in 1962. The proportions of these in Scotland were 4·9 per cent, HA per cent. and 10·7 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Ross: Do not even these figures, like all the others, show the absolute ineffectiveness and futility of all the Government's protestations that they are doing all they can, when in fact the Government are failing to get into Scotland the growing industries which Scotland needs?

Mr. Hare: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I have repeatedly told hon. Members this afternoon that it is our intention to see that Scotland gets a larger share of the growing industries.

Mr. Ross: We are concerned not only with the Government's intentions but with what they have done. One of the right hon. Gentleman's Answers showed that this had been absolutely nothing, for the figure in that case was 0 per cent.

Mr. Stodart: Would not my right hon. Friend admit that there is at least one industry, the electronics industry, in which Scotland has had a greater share of its proportion of the growth of the United Kingdom economy in the last few years?

Mr. Hare: It is due to the Government's encouragement that that has happened.

Mr. Bence: asked the Minister of Labour what was the number of boys engaged as apprentices in the motor vehicle and cycle manufacturing industry in Great Britain during each of the past three years; and what proportion of these was engaged in Scotland.

Mr. Hare: In the motor vehicle and cycle manufacturing industry 2,442 boys entered apprenticeships in 1960, 2,629 in 1961 and 2,453 in 1962. The proportions of these in Scotland were 4·3 per cent., 4·6 per cont. and 5·1 per cent. respectively.

Mr. Bence: Is the right hon. Gentle-aware that several of his colleagues, including the Secretary of State for Scotland, have been making speeches in Scotland and saying that Scotland needs greater diversification, but that unfortunately more skilled men are needed? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that his statements of this afternoon show that his Ministry is helping to create more skilled men, when the Scottish figures of apprenticeships for most of the growing industries in the United Kingdom are so small?

Mr. Hare: What I hope is that the measures which the Government have in hand will be successful and that there will be a requirement for more skilled men, both young and old, in Scottish industry.

Mr. Bence: But do not the right hon. Gentleman's own figures show that not enough skilled men are being trained in Scotland?

AGRICULTURE (ANNUAL REVIEW)

3.30 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Christopher Soames): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and with that of the House, I should like to report the results of the Annual Agricultural Review. They are set out in detail in a White Paper which will be available in the Vote Office.
The industry's forecast net income for 1962–63, adjusted for normal weather is £407 million, compared with £413 million last year and £390 million the year before. The forecast of net output shows a further increase.
The cost of agricultural support in the Estimates for 1963–64 is £364 million. That figure was put in before this Review, but compares with an expected out-turn this year of £321 million.
Turning now to individual commodities, I take, first, milk, which accounts for nearly a quarter of farm income. The trouble in recent years has come from ever-rising production causing an increasing proportion of milk to be sold at low manufacturing prices thus reducing the return to the producer. Now, at last, there are signs that the rise in milk production is coming more into line with the rise in consumption of liquid milk. Moreover, the latest returns show a levelling off in the size of the dairy herd and a significant reduction in the number of dairy heifers in calf. We are, therefore, raising the guaranteed price for the standard quantity of milk by ½d. a gallon. An increase in this amount should not stimulate further excess production, but any greater increase would involve this risk. The higher price will be of particular benefit to many small farmers who rely on the milk cheque for much of their income.
With beef, mutton and lamb, production is running at broadly the same level as last year and for most of the year market prices have been higher. The guaranteed prices for fat cattle, sheep and wool will be left unchanged.
Pig production, however, has risen to a very high level which has depressed the market price and caused a big increase in the cost of support. At the

1961 Review we introduced a flexible guarantee arrangement which increased the guaranteed price if there were too few pigs in prospect and reduced the price if there were too many. But the number of pigs has increased beyond the scale then devised. We are now strengthening the arrangement by expanding the scale and making larger price changes at its higher and lower ends. The effect of this will be a deduction of 3s. 6d. a score from the basic guaranteed price on the latest forecast of pig numbers instead of the present 1s. 6d., but as marketings fall the basic price to the farmer will rise again. We are not altering the basic guaranteed price, but we are relating it to a higher level of marketings to take account of the upward trend in consumption.
For all commodities the form of the guarantee arrangements is no less important than the guaranteed price. We are making a number of improvements in the detailed fatstock guarantee arrangements for this year and are giving notice of others. Details of these are given in the White Paper.
As with pigs, the course we are following for eggs is not to alter the guaranteed price, but to adapt the machinery of the guarantee arrangements to ensure that support does not encourage production to a point which undermines the market. We are making new arrangements, the intention of which is to limit the deficiency payment to what would be payable to the Marketing Board in conditions where the market is in reasonable balance. If the average selling price is below this level, a proportion of the loss will initially be borne by the Exchequer though this will be phased out over the years. Provision will also be made for additional payments to the Board if imports rise above a normal level.
For cereals, production of wheat and barley continues to rise. We are already largely self-sufficient in barley and a high proportion of the wheat crop is having to be sold for animal feed. The trend of market prices is generally downwards. We are reducing the guaranteed price of wheat by 5d. per cwt. and of barley by 1ld. per cwt. There will be no change in the guaranteed prices for other cereals.
The guaranteed price for potatoes will be raised by 10s. a ton in order to encourage a further increase in acreage,


which is at present on the low side. There will be no change in the guaranteed price for sugar beet.
As regards production grants, we intend to reduce the fertiliser subsidy by £2 million. New schemes are being introduced to encourage the production of winter keep in livestock-rearing areas and the renovation of permanent grassland. We propose to reduce the rate for the main ploughing grant from £7 to £5 per acre.
To sum up. The maximum reduction in the value of the guarantees under the terms of the Agriculture Act, 1957, would this year be £22½ million. In fact, the effect of this year's determinations is to leave the value of the guarantees virtually uncharged. The saving to the taxpayer, however, will be about £14 million. This is largely because the cost of the milk increase is not met from revenue, and because the change in the pig guarantee arrangements will cause a reduction in the coming year of the cost of this subsidy.
The cost of agricultural support to the Exchequer has risen steeply in recent years and further changes are needed to bring this cost under more effective control. Accordingly, during the months ahead, the Government will be discussing their proposals with the leaders of the industry and with Commonwealth and other countries who supply foodstuffs to this market.

Mr. Peart: May I ask the Minister whether the Review was agreed, or whether it was imposed on the industry? Can the right hon. Gentleman give details of the unions' attitude on particular commodities?
Will the Minister give the House the forecast for the agricultural net output for 1962–63, and if possible, two sets of figures: first, using the new index which has been agreed upon; and, secondly, can he relate it to the pre-war average?
May I ask whether, despite the cut in the fertiliser subsidy, and in the ploughing grant, of £2 per acre, there will still be an increase over the year in farm grants and subsidies? Are the Government intending to switch more support in this direction?
The egg subsidy is to be paid on a certain amount of production. How will this operate in the absence of import control?
It seems that the Minister is making a flexible guarantee for pigs less flexible. How will this operate in the absence of import control? When are the Government likely to reach a decision on this matter? When will they announce their policy on broad import control?
Is it not a fact that this Review confirms that farmers' net incomes are down, and yet, in the end, the consumer may have to pay more for certain commodities?
Finally, will the Government announce when they can find time to debate the details of the White Paper and their underlying policy, or lack of policy, for agriculture?

Mr. Soames: On the net output figures, the increase over the pre-war figure is about 86 per cent. Barley provides the best example of the increase in crop production. The figure is more than seven times what it was pre-war. The production of wheat and sugar beet has doubled.
The figure this year for farm grants is £111 million, which is broadly the same as last year. We have brought in two new farm grants, the grassland renovation and winter keep schemes, which we discussed in the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill. The ploughing grant is being reduced, but the total is roughly the same.
We have fixed a figure for imports of eggs. If the import figure rises above that level, and the price falls below the indicator price, there will be an additional payment by the Exchequer to the Egg Marketing Board.
The figure for pigs over the last three years shows a considerable increase in home production, from 620,000 tons to 720,000 tons. The figures for imports over the same period are 427,000 tons and 419,000 tons. Here, the important thing is to keep the market in balance. In recent years, there has been a considerable increase in home production. Regrettably, there has been a small decline in net income from £413 million to £407 million. I commend the hon. Gentleman's attention to table C appendix 2 in the White Paper which gives details of how this comes about.
There is nothing in the Review which will result in increased expenditure to the consumer, except in respect of milk. The increased price will mean a pint more for one month of the year. Last year, the consumer was paying 8½d. a


pint for seven months of the year and 8d. for five months. Now it will be 8½d. for eight months and 8d. for four months.
In the past we have frequently had debates on agriculture following on Reviews. We did not have one last time. These have usually taken place in Opposition time, on a Supply Day. But doubtless this matter can be discussed through the usual channels.

Mr. Peart: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Review was agreed?

Mr. Soames: It was not agreed.

Mr. Bullard: Will my right hon. Friend say how the figure of net income has been affected by the exceptional winter experienced by farmers and others?

Mr. Soames: The weather could be taken into account only up to the end of January, when the figures have to be compiled. The figure of £407 million is on the basis of a normal year. But my hon. Friend will see from the table that in this movement of net income there is a movement of gross income for the horticultural industry which has suffered from the weather.

Mr. Woodburn: During the past year the industry has been led to believe that this year serious changes would be made in connection with the negotiations over the Common Market. Does the Minister's statement mean that now the industry may settle down to things as they were before, and that it is unlikely that the Government are contemplating making violent changes?

Mr. Soames: Had we entered the Common Market, the common agricultural policy would obviously, to a large degree, have dictated the agricultural policy of this country. But outside the Common Market that is not so. We have our own agricultural policy. All we are saying is that our present system was devised in times of food shortage in the whole of the Western world. We are now in times of plenty and there are certain changes and adaptations which we need to bring about in the existing system in order to match the present circumstances.

Sir A. Hurd: May we take it that this Review, which seems to be fair and

reasonable—[HON. MEMBERS "0h."] Well, it is—should result in the overall income of the farming industry being maintained at the level at which it stood during the year now ending, with grain growers getting rather less and milk producers slightly more? Will my right hon. Friend give the House a hint whether this arrangement for eggs—whereby if heavy imports undermine the level of the home market there will be some recompense to home producers—foreshadows more effective import control policy by the Government?

Mr. Soames: With the no-change, Review, and the increasing productivity and efficiency of the industry, I would hope to see farm incomes rising in the next year, given a reasonable season. What my hon. Friend said about the change of balance is broadly true though doubtless grain growers, with their increased efficiency, will be able to off-set some of the reduction in price.
The arrangement for eggs is the best under existing circumstances. We could all devise different arrangements. But in the present circumstances, and with our import and trading arrangements as they are, we believe this to be the best arrangement.

Mr. Hilton: Would not the Minister agree that a reduction of £2 million in the fertiliser subsidy is false economy, especially in relation to small farmers who find it difficult, in any case, to get sufficient fertiliser? Where is the sense in giving the benefit of ½d. a gallon on milk —which is appreciated—and also making this reduction in the fertiliser subsidy? Is not it a case of paying out with one hand and taking it back with the other?

Mr. Soames: No, it is not. We have reduced the fertiliser subsidy every year for a number of years. In fact, it has been matched by the increased efficiency of fertilisers and the reduction in price to the fanner, so the actual cost has not risen over recent years. We do not know what the cost of fertilisers will be in the coming year, because we do not know the price at which fertilisers will be marketed by the manufacturers. But even if none of the cut is restored by a reduction in price, the fact remains that this £2 million cut is against a background of fertiliser subsidy costing the Exchequer £37 million in the Estimates this year, compared with


£35 million last year and £33 million the year before. The increase of ½d. on milk, and the increased consumption of liquid milk, represents an increase of £6 million to the dairy industry.

Sir R. Nugent: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the new arrangements he is making for eggs and pigs, which will relate the price guarantee, to some extent, to the tone of the market, are much to be welcomed, particularly in view of the heavy total cost of price guarantees to the taxpayer? Will he consider, during the coining year, working out arrangements by which fatstock and cereals guarantees may be linked in a similar way?

Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend has put his finger on the most difficult problem. As he rightly says, apart from fat-stock and cereals we have a broad standard quantity arrangement for all commodities this year including eggs. If my right hon. Friend looks at the Estimates for next year, which have been published, he will see that out of a total estimate for deficiency payments of £234 million, no less than £209 million are for cereals and fatstock. It is this matter which we shall have to look at in order to contain the open-ended nature of the Exchequer support.

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, will tell the House what proportion of the total sum will accrue to the Scottish industry and how it compares with the last twelve months.
May I ask what estimate the Minister made of the additional acreage required to meet the expected potato shortage?
The last paragraph of the right hon. Gentleman's statement seems to foretell that this will be the last of the Annual Price Reviews, as we know them at present. May I ask him to explain what he has in mind? Is it his intention to impose a levy on foodstuffs imported from the Commonwealth and, if so, would this mean an increase in food prices in this country, and so reduce the deficiency payments to our own farmers? If that is so, we should like to know whether the income from this source will be used to meet the cost of the remaining subsidies and what effect all this will have on the cost of living.
Finally, in view of the wide difference between producer and consumer prices, can the Minister say whether, in his discussions with the industry, he has any plans for providing for commodity marketing arrangements which would equip the industry to meet the present situation?

Mr. Soames: The proportion of Exchequer money estimated to go to Scotland next year is about one-seventh of the total, which is the same proportion that it has been over recent years, I understand.
We had a debate on potatoes last spring. I said then that the acreage at which the Potato Marketing Board would be aiming would be about 700,000, which would provide on average yields about what is necessary for consumption in the country. At present, it is about 40,000 acres short on this year's plantings.
On the question of future policy, as I have said, we are to have discussions with Commonwealth and overseas suppliers. The Government are, therefore, not in a position today to make any announcement about policy.
The hon. Member knows there are boards for a number of commodities. It is, of course, for the industry, under the Act, if it wishes, to apply to the Minister for permission to set up more marketing boards for other commodities. There have been no applications in recent years.

Sir Richard Glyn: May I tell my right hon. Friend how much the small farmers will welcome the concession on milk? They have had a very difficult time lately and this small increase will be appreciated.
I should like to ask for a little more information about eggs. We shall be having virtually a standard quantity. The home production of eggs has been almost sufficient for the home market during the last few years and is becoming increasingly sufficient for this. The Minister spoke of the average normal level of imports, but could he say whether he was taking as normal the figure for last year or for a number of years, which might be at a lower figure?
Will he also say whether the reduction in the price per score for pigs may not have the effect of increasing the number produced, because specialists in pig production feel the need to keep up their


incomes and this may lead to an increase in the number of pigs and not a reduction? Will he consider that side of the matter?

Mr. Soames: I agree with my hon. Friend on the question of milk. I think that this will be of considerable benefit, particularly to the small milk producer. The figure for imports of eggs is 950,000 boxes for the year, which has been the average, I believe, for the last four years, although I stand to be corrected on that. In any event, it represents only about 2 per cent. of the consumption of eggs in the country. I cannot agree that the reduction of 2s. per score for pigs will bring about an increase in their number. I think that we shall see a reduction in the pig herd in the year ahead.

Mr. Thorpe: If the Minister envisages a shortage of potatoes, is it not just as important as the 10s. per ton increase to persuade the Potato Marketing Board to lift the quota on acreage? Has he any intentions in that matter? As to barley, does the Minister recall that the 1960 White Paper called attention to the need for a stabilising element in the market? Does he regard this reduction as bringing that about, or does he not agree that this increases the need for a cereals commission as a purchaser in the last resort?
Although the concession on milk will be welcome to small farmers, is it not a fact that it is an increase of only 1d. per gallon on the 1961 figures? May we take it that there will be some stability in the price and that this will not change every year, as that brings about uncertainty to small farmers?
Finally, may we hope that in view of the continued decrease in fertiliser subsidy the Minister will do something about the £4 per ton tariff which has to be paid on imports of fertilisers, which puts up the price of the home product?

Mr. Soames: The quota on potato acreage is not the limiting factor. Indeed, this year is not a quota year. The quota did not apply in this year to growers of potatoes. Even so, there was a short fall of acreage. That is why we think that this modest increase will encourage the necessary increase in acreage.
The hon. Member asked about the stabilising element in arley which we

introduced. This was to hold the market more level over the year and to encourage people to hold their barley and not put a greater proportion than is necessary on the market in the early months. This has worked well and we do not intend to alter it.
On the question of milk, as I said in my statement there have been troubles for a long period of years. They were brought about by the levelling off in production being larger than the increase in consumption. In 1961, I was faced with an increase of 140 million gallons production over consumption. Last year, it was down to 60 million and this year it is down to 20 million which, against the background of a total production of 2,550 million, is not an enormous quantity and it obviously is becoming much more into line. Coupled with the increase in the size of the herd and a decrease in the number of dairy heifers in calf, this enabled us to make the increase in the price.
Of course, we shall have to watch future trends of production very carefully. If this is a trend that we are in, obviously the prospect looks rosier for the industry than an up-turn in excess production.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Will my right hon. Friend say, first, to what extent unlifted sugar beet which will not now be capable of being put through the factory has accounted for the shortfall in farming income this year? Secondly, in considering import policy will he bear in mind that it is not always the amount which comes in, but the time at which it comes in which matters most? Will he consider bringing into these consultations not only Commonwealth countries, but also the Argentine and some European countries?

Mr. Soames: I quite agree that it is not only the quantity, but also the timing and the price which are important. In my statement I did not refer only to the Commonwealth, but to all overseas suppliers.
On sugar beet, I could not give my hon. Friend the figure off the cuff, but I remember that the amount of beet estimated to be left in the ground was about 6 per cent. of the total crop. I think—if I may chance my arm—that it was about£1½ million.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: We really must proceed to the next business.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

British and Commonwealth Telecommunications Satellite

Mr. Farey-Jones: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 29th March, I shall call attention to the urgent necessity for the provision of a British and Commonwealth telecommunications satellite, and the preservation of existing design staffs and confidence in the future of British scientists; and move a Resolution.

State of the Press and Mass Communication

Mr. Robert Cooke: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 29th March, I shall call attention to the present state of the Press and other means of mass communication; and move a Resolution.

Rates

Mr. Goodhart: I beg to give notice that or. Friday, 29th March, I shall call attention to the rates; and move a Resolution.

Orders of the Day — WEIGHTS AND MEASURES BILL

Order for consideration, as amended (in the Standing Committee) read.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendments to Clause 34, page 39, lines 32 and 43, and page 40, line 27, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Lord Balniel.—[Lord Balniel.]

Question amended, by adding at the end:
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause,2 page 2, line 32, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Cyril Bence".—[Mr. Bence.]
and
and in respect of the Amendment to Clause 43, page 46, line 11, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. George Darling".—[Mr. Darling.]
and, as amended, agreed to.

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir ROBERT GRIMSTON in the Chair]

Clause 2.—(UNITED KINGDOM PRIMARY STANDARDS AND UTHORISED COPIES THEREOF.)

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I beg to move, in page 2, line 32, at the end to insert:
(4) The Board of Trade shall cause additional authorised copies of the United Kingdom primary standards of the yard and pound to be maintained aft Edinburgh.
I move this Amendment because the Bill applies to Scotland. If one looks at the Schedule one finds that all the copies of the standards are maintained in the City of London, except one which is in the City of Westminster, in a wall in one of the passages in the House of Commons. We do not want the Scots coming there and taking the standard from the wall in one of the passages of the House of Commons as they came down and took the Stone from Westminster Abbey.
The purpose of my Amendment is to provide that not only shall there be official, authorised copies of the standards in various institutions in London


but that we shall also have them in Edinburgh. The point has been brought to my notice by the Scottish weights and measures authorities and several other authorities. They feel that these facilities should be available in Scotland.
After all, Scotland is a part of the United Kingdom; this is the unity of two kingdoms, and Scotland is, therefore, itself a nation and a kingdom. It is not like the West Country, or the North-East, or East Anglia; it is a nation which has a capita—Edinburgh. The weights and measures authorities in Scotland believe that their reference to this Measure should not involve their coming to London, which is the Metropolis of England, but that they should have a reference in Edinburgh, which is the Metropolis of Scotland.
I know very well that if this were debated in Scotland there would be an argument whether it should be Edinburgh or Glasgow. I live in Glasgow. I see here my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis), who is a patriotic Scottish Member. He represents an Edinburgh constituency. I will accede to the wishes of the east of Scotland that these copies should be kept in Edinburgh, and that is why I put Edinburgh in the Amendment rather than Glasgow.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: Would it be a good idea to put it on the Loch Ness monster?

Mr. Bence: It is true that we have a monster in Loch Ness, but we have so much legislation made in London but affecting Scotland that many Scots believe that although they have a monster in Loch Ness, the worst monster they have on their backs is down here. The Loch Ness monster attracts many people to Scotland. Possibly if the Yorkshire Dales could find a monster in some of the potholes there, it would attract visitors to Yorkshire. But my aim is to attract to Scotland not visitors but copies of the standards.
There are a number of these copies and they are not difficult to manufacture. We are not asking for something which would be very costly or very difficult, and we are not adding appreciably to the difficulties of administration or of supervision in carrying out the Act, or of the difficulties of the body which is to be set up to supervise the standards. We shall

not be adding to any of their difficulties. The copies will be in Edinburgh, and I have no doubt that the maintenance and supervision of these standards in Edinburgh will be a comparatively simple task for the Commission which is to be set up.
We have institutions in Scotland where standards could be maintained, we have a splendid university, we have the old Parliament buildings. I am sure that if he catches your eye, Sir Robert, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East will be able to give the Committee a detailed exposition of the suitable conditions in Edinburgh for maintaining these standards.
There is the standard of measurement of length—the yard—and the standard of liquid measure, for example, which have to be maintained. These are used as reference by weights and measures inspectors and authorities. I have met many of these people, and they tell me that they come to London for this purpose. They say that these standards are used especially for people training to become inspectors. They go to the institutions where these weights and measures standards are maintained.
I talked to two or three men who are now weights and measures inspectors and who, during their training, came to an institute in London to see these standards and to see how they are manufactured and maintained. They wanted to see how the instruments of temperature were maintained, how the meter standard is supported on rollers and how bend allowances are made. All that could be done by going to Edinburgh.
We talk a good deal in the House about the redistribution of population, and there is a move to get more people up to the North and more industry up to Scotland. Part of this process is to make Edinburgh more of a Metropolis than it is today. Too much of the centre of things is driven and maintained in the City of London, and the City of London is becoming choked with all the centres of research and development which are being established here.
This is a very important Bill. In this modern age, weighing and measuring is a scientific process. It is not the haphazard process of a hundred years ago. Weighing and measuring machines in use today are very complicated and highly technical.
I believe that if we can establish a centre to maintain standards, then around it we can maintain all the ancillary activities or help to stimulate the ancillary activities to enable certain industries connected with it to develop and grow. For centuries the Mint was in Birmingham. There is a factory in Birmingham still called the Mint. Out of the fact that the Mint was established in Birmingham, where coins and measuring instruments were made, there grew in Birmingham the artificial jewel industry. It sprang from the fact that the Mint was in Birmingham.
If we could maintain these standards in Edinburgh, and if the retail and manufacturing industry in Edinburgh knew of the existence of these institutions where standards were maintained, it would be a good thing for Scotland. It would help the whole retail industry of Scotland to be more competitive, and there would be a psychological appreciation of the growing need for more accurate and a better use of weighing and measuring instruments.

Mr. E. G. Willis: I support the Amendment, because I think that, being the capital city of Scotland, Edinburgh is a suitable place for one of these standards to be maintained. It is probably quite accidental that Edinburgh is not the capital of the United Kingdom. If James VI, when he became James I of England, had kept his court in Edinburgh, instead of our meeting here today we might have been meeting in Edinburgh.
The unfortunate thing for Scotland was that James VI, when he became James I of England, came down here and set up his court in London. Had he not done so, and had he stayed in Edinburgh, a large number of things might have been different today. Apart from the speculation as to what might have happened had he established his court in Edinburgh, it is only right that one of the standards should be in Edinburgh.
I did not take part in the debates in Standing Committee, but I have been studying the Second Schedule. Mr. Baily's Metal No. 1 standard yard is to be in London. Mr. Baily's Metal No. 2 standard yard is to be at the Mint in London. Mr. Baily's Metal No. 3 standard yard is to be at the Royal Society, also in London. Mr. Baily's

Metal No. 5 standard yard is to be at the Royal Greenwich Observatory, also in London. Mr. Baily's Metal No. 4 standard yard is to be immured in the Palace of Westminster. The other copies are to be deposited at the standard weights and measures department of the Board of Trade.
Why does London need all these copies of the standard? There is a good case for having at least one in Edinburgh. I hope that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will have a few words to say about this. If people want to check up, why should they have to travel to London? Why should they not be able to do this in Edinburgh? This is a reasonable request. I can see no reason why it should not be granted. It is not as though we are asking for the expenditure of millions of pounds. We are asking for something which could cost very little and would save quite a lot of money in other directions. What we are asking for is something that would assist Scotland and save much unnecessary travel.
I should not like to guess what the reasons can be for the Government not acceding to this request. I just do not know what they are. It is a form of English nationalism which I thought we had got over long ago in the United Kingdom. I very much deplore this display of a sort of arrogant nationalism which denies ancient and honourable kingdoms their rights.

Mr. J. A. Stodart: Would the hon. Gentleman say that this English nationalism of which he complains is akin to the Stalinism of which he accused the Scottish Office yesterday?

Mr. Willis: I am sure that if I began to talk about the Tories establishing Stalinism in the Highlands I should be out of order. In any case, I said what I wanted to say about that yesterday morning.
This is a remarkable business. I support my hon. Friend in his very reasonable and moderate demand. That is all that I can say about it. It is so reasonable that one would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would have leapt to the Box to save the Committee's time and would have said that he had great pleasure in accepting the Amendment. I should have thought that he


would have congratulated my hon. Friend on having made such an eminently reasonable suggestion. It is non-political, non-party and reasonable. It would increase the efficiency of the running of affairs and it would also pay a humble tribute to the status of Edinburgh as the capital city of Scotland. It would also pay a little tribute to that ancient race, the Scots.
I hope that even though we have so far taken a quarter of an hour of the Committee's time, that time has not been wasted and that the Parliamentary Secretary intends to accept the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. David Price): The assiduity of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) in all matters appertaining to Scotland was demonstrated on a number of occasions during the Committee stage of the Bill. The object of his Amendment is understandable. He has on this occasion got the support of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I cannot help being reminded of these words of Sir James Barrie:
There are few more impressive sights in the world than a Scotsman on the make.
I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment. I do not think that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East has quite understood what we are doing in Clause 2, or in Schedule 2. The location of authorised copies is where they are at present. It is purely descriptive. Hon. Members will recall that the standards listed in subsection (3) are only to be the United Kingdom primary standard—primary standards can he in only one place, by definition, or authorised copies of those standards—I pointed out to the Standing Committee that it is where they are at present, not where they may be in future, as the case may be, and, I quote
Until other provision is made by an Order under Section 8 of this Act.
In other words, this subsection is a holding provision until the Commission on Units and Standards of Measurement has been able to consider the whole matter of where the primary standards should be maintained and under what scientific conditions—similarly in con-

nection with the authorised copies—and to make recommendations to the Board of Trade.
As hon. Members are aware, the place of keeping of the primary standards and authorised copies is one of the matters on which the Commission may make recommendations under Clause 8 (1, b), and in making any recommendations on this matter the Commission will no doubt consider the claims of Scotland. What is at present drafted is simply a holding operation and we have described where these standards and authorised copies are now. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, therefore withdraw his Amendment and await the recommendations of the Commission. I have no doubt that the Commission will pay due attention to his comments and the recommendation of his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East.

Mr. Bence: I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's point about this being a holding Clause and that it describes where the standards are to be kept. I also appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has made a sort of promise for the future. I have been an hon. Member for twelve years and I can well recall some of the promises that have been made by the Government. None of them has been fulfilled and I am unlikely to be here for another twelve years to see whether this one or any of the others will be fulfilled. In fact, if I am here in twelve years' time I will have to be wheeled in in a bathchair.

Mr. Tiley: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that when he came here twelve years ago the Government of the day, his own Government, ignored all these things?

Mr. Bence: It is a good job that the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) is not in charge of the Bill. I came here in October, 1951, in the midst of a Conservative Government.

Mr. Tiley: A fringe benefit.

Mr. Bence: The hon. Member's calculations are incorrect, but I must not pursue this, or I would be out of order.
I am rather worried about the Parliamentary Secretary's suggestion that I should withdraw the Amendment on what seems a very lukewarm promise. Could the hon. Gentleman give me a slightly


better assurance? Perhaps he will consult his right hon. Friend and assure me that when the Commission is set up instructions will be given for copies of the standards to be deposited in Edinburgh.
We in Scotland are serious about this matter and believe that a good deal may depend on making Edinburgh a greater metropolis than it is at present. Edinburgh is a metropolis. It is the capital of Scotland—festivals of art and all sorts of things go on there—and my hon. Friends and I are asking for something extremely modest. We are not demanding the taxpayers' money, but air merely asking that Edinburgh be increased in its propensity of being a metropolis.
To illustrate Edinburgh's importance hon. Members should recall that we have even had a visit from the Royal House of Norway to Scotland and that it was received by our own gracious Queen in Edinburgh. Thus, what we are asking for may be the beginning of further moves to make Edinburgh art even greater metropolis. To do this Edinburgh will need to possess additional things—including various copies of the standards.
If the Parliamentary Secretary can give me a stronger pledge that he will do everything in his power to see that when the Commission is set up copies will be placed in Edinburgh.. I will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. D. Price: I can give no pledge to the hon. Member because, as he knows, the Commission will be independent. It would not be independent if it felt that it could be nobbled by Parliamentary Secretaries into the advice it should give. I would also remind him that I lived for twelve years in Edinburgh and that I have great sympathies for his claims of the City.

Mr. Willis: I am not certain, but I think that the Parliamentary Secretary said that the Commission might look into this matter. I would have thought that the Board of Trade should tell the Commission, when it is set up, that copies of the standards must be placed in Edinburgh. In any case, why should words to this effect not be clearly written in the Bill? We are not asking for much and I would have thought that this was a matter about which Parliament is entitled to instruct the Commission. The Board of Trade already has certain powers and if hon. Members consider it right that the words

contained in the Amendment should be written into the Bill, what would stop them from doing so?
From my reading of the Bill the Board of Trade will be giving directions to the Commission, not necessarily about where copies of the standards should be placed but about other, equally important, matters. If so, I cannot see why the Department should not now agree to copies being placed in Edinburgh.
Why should we have to wait for a decision to be made by some Commission which we cannot get at, except in an indirect way? As to nobbling the Parliamentary Secretary, that is a rare occurrence, because if we attempt to put down Questions to his right hon. Friend we find that even when he is at the top of the list for answering, our Question is numbered 56 or thereabouts and we have lost him for another six weeks.
This is a matter of sufficient importance for us to include it in the Bill. I do not like this business of Edinburgh being left to the mercies of a Commission about which we know nothing. The Parliamentary Secretary has sidestepped the issue with the old familiar Government touch of "passing the buck" to a Commission that does not even exist. This is such an important matter that it deserves a reply from the President of the Board of Trade who, I hope, will now accept the Amendment.
I am surprised that something as simple as asking for standards of measurement to be placed in Edinburgh should be rejected by the Government in such an offhand manner and that the whole question should be left to a Commission which does not yet exist. After all, this is probably one of the most modest requests Scottish hon. Members have made for many years. No wonder my Scottish colleagues and I tend to occupy the time of the House. The only way we can do anything is to repeatedly try to impress our views on Ministers.
The President of the Board of Trade has not done a great deal for Scotland; certainly not sufficient. This is one way he could help us without causing any controversy. I hope that he will now say that in view of our modest request he will agree to have these standards placed in Edinburgh. We have many noble, ancient and historic buildings in Edinburgh. We would not be immuring


the standards in the walls of a building one hundred years old. We are able to put them in buildings that are centuries old.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Put them in the Castle Rock?

Mr. Willis: Yes, that has an even longer history. I hope that, without having to impress our views any further on the Parliamentary Secretary, he will agree to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bence: In view of what has been said in this short debate, and the obvious difficulty my hon. Friend and I have with the Parliamentary Secretary—faced as we are with this frightful English metropolistic parochialism—and since we will try later, perhaps in another place, to get something done to vindicate the honour of Scotland—especially Edinburgh, the capital of that ancient kingdom—and to ensure that it receives its due reward, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn,

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34.—(LOCAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AUTHORITIES IN ENGLAND AND WALES.)

4.30 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I beg to move, in page 39, line 32, after "If", to insert "(i)".

The Deputy-Chairman: It might be convenient to the Committee also to take the Amendment in page 39, line 43, at end insert:
or
(ii) not later than 30th June, 1964, the council of any rural district make representations in writing to the Board and to the council of the county in which the district is situated that the council of the district should become the local weights and measures authority therefor ".
and the Amendment in page 40, line 27, at end insert "or rural".

Lord Bahel: I think, Sir Robert, that it would be for the convenience of the Committee to take the three Amendments simultaneously.
Hon. Members who were members of the Standing Committee will recollect that

in that Committee I moved a number of Amendments to bring rural district councils into line with urban district councils in the matter of weights and measures authority powers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, on 24th January, as will be seen from column 449 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of Standing Committee B, undertook to consider sympathetically a number of Amendments to implement one of me Amendments which I then moved. I should like to thank him for the care and courtesy with which he considered this matter.
Hon. Members will remember that Clause 34 (5) as drafted gives urban district councils and non-county boroughs with a population of less than 60,000 the right to represent to the Board of Trade and to the county council that they should have weights and measures authority powers. The Board of Trade, in consultation with the county council, may feel that special circumstances exist and may grant such powers to the smaller urban districts and to the non-county boroughs. Discretion as to whether such powers are granted or not rests completely in the hands of the Board of Trade.
These three Amendments are designed to give exactly similar powers to rural district councils. The Committee will remember that the Hodgson Committee on Weights and Measures Regulation recommended that there should be no cutting across different types of local government. I am sure that there will be a general feeling among those who are interested in the well-being of local government that it would be unwise to discriminate between one type of district council and another.
The Amendments are solely designed to put the smaller rural district councils in exactly the same position as the smaller urban district councils. They do not give an automatic right to rural district councils to become weights and measures authorities. All they do is to give them the right to apply to the President of the Board of Trade to give them the power in special circumstances if he so wishes.
I hope, therefore, that the Amendments commend themselves to the Committee as a whole.

Mr. George Darling: In Standing Committee we made it perfectly clear that we on this


side of the Committee would treat the Bill as a non-party Measure and that hon. Members on both sides could vote and say anything they liked. Therefore, on this question of which local authorities should be weights and measures authorities we each expressed our own point of view.
I will express mine briefly. The duties which the Bi11 proposes to impose on weights and measures inspectors and authorities will make it difficult for those duties to be carried out by even urban district authorities with populations of 60,000. I think that the scope of the work is not quite sufficiently appreciated by the Committee. On Third Reading, when it will be proper to do so, we shall have more to say about the administrative problems that will be involved. My view is that weights and measures authorities should be restricted to county boroughs and county councils. I understand, and though I have not looked it up I think that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) stated it in Standing Committee, that there are perhaps only six rural district councils which will come within the population figures laid down in the Amendment.

Lord Balniel: There were only six or seven rural district councils with a population of over 60,000. The hon. Member will appreciate that these Amendments deal with rural district councils with a population of below 60,000, not those which are given an automatic right but only those which would be given the right to apply to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Darling: I am sorry, I was hurrying along.
I understand that one of the rural district councils referred to in Standing Committee was Chesterfield Rural District Council and that Derby County Council is opposed to even that council being a weights and measures authority, for the good reason that the county council had its administrative machinery working very successfully and there would be fragmentation of that machinery if the rural district councils took that power, as they would do if the Amendments were carried, and provided that the Board of Trade agreed.

Lord Balniel: With great respect, the hon. Member is mistaken. These Amendments do not apply to rural district councils with a population of over 60,000. There is no intention to give them an automatic right, but solely the right to apply to my right hon. Friend for weights and measures authority.

Mr. Darling: I do not think that there is any quarrel between us. I am assuming that application is made to the Board of Trade and the application is considered. I do not think that it should even be considered. The difficulty is that the administration of Derby County Council, for instance, would be fragmented. This would mean that in future, as the county council says, and I thoroughly agree with it, that council would have great difficulty in carrying out its administrative duties in many parts of the county if the proposition was accepted by the Board of Trade.
Because there will be further fragmentation if applications to the Board of Trade are approved, and because the wider scope of duties under the Bill will make it inevitable that the Bill as an Act can be properly administrated only by large weights and measures authorities, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the Amendment should be opposed and that the noble Lord the Member for Hertford should be asked to withdraw it.

Mr. D. Price: During the debate in Standing Committee on Clause 34, my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) moved two Amendments which, had they been accepted, would have enabled, first, a rural district council having a population over 60,000 to resolve as of right to be a weights and measures authority, and, secondly, a rural district council having a population of less than 60,000 to make representations to the Board of Trade that because of special circumstances in their area they should be given the weights and measures function.
Hon. Members will recall that in Standing Committee the Government were unable to accept the Amendments, but I did indicate that they would be prepared to consider sympathetically the possibility of amending the Clause


so that rural district councils, irrespective of their population, would be included within the scope of the procedure set out in Clause 34 (5) for non-county boroughs and urban district councils with populations of less than 60,000.
These three Amendments would have that effect, if they were accepted by the Committee. They would give any rural district, no matter what its population, the right to make representations to the Board of Trade by June, 1964, that it should be a local weights and measures authority. The Board—and I draw the attention of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) to this—after consulting the county council concerned, and being itself satisfied that the special circumstances claimed by the rural district council in question warranted it. would then be able to direct that that council should be a weights and measures authority. I believe that those two qualifications should go some way to meeting the hon. Gentleman's fear that there would be excessive fragmentation.
I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if urban district councils and non-county boroughs should have the right to become weights and measures authorities—with a population over60,000 as of right, and with a population under 60,000 by applying—there is little justification, in principle, for not allowing the rural district councils the same right. Of course, some rural district councils have a very scattered area and, therefore, would not qualify under the two conditions, namely, the views of the county council and the satisfaction of the Board of Trade that there were special circumstances.
The Amendments would provide a procedure comparable with that under the Local Government Act, 1958 for the delegation to rural district councils of the health and education functions. There is, therefore, a consistency here in the treatment of rural district councils. I recommend the Committee to accept the Amendments.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: The Parliamentary Secretary used the expression "special circumstances", referring to this as a factor which would carry some weight in deciding the outcome of an applica-

tion by a rural district council. It may be rather late to suggest it, but would it not be desirable to incorporate that expression in the Clause? It is a hallowed form of words, as the Parliamentary Secretary knows. If the existence of special circumstances is to be the justification for acceptance of the Amendment, it would be better, I suggest, to insert the expression in proper form.

Mr. Price: It is there. I draw the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the last few lines of the opening paragraph of subsection (5). The words "special circumstances" already appear in the Bill with reference to the right of urban district councils and non-county boroughs to claim to be weights and measures authorities.

Mr. Irvine: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for directing my attention to that. It seems to meet the point. I was simply observing that the words were not used in the Amendment itself, and I am grateful to have that information.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 39, line 43, at end insert:
or
(ii) not later than 30th June 1964 the council of any rural district make representations in writing to the Board and to the council of the county in which the district is situated that the council of the district should become the local weights and measures authority therefor ".

In page 40, line 27, at end insert "or rural".—[Lord Balniel.]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 43.—(PERFORMANCE BY INSPEC-TORS OF ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS.)

4.45 p.m.

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, in page 46, line 11, to leave out subsection (1) and to insert:
(1) A local weights and measures authority may appoint under section 41 of this Act an inspector to act under the supervision of a chief inspector for the area as an adjuster of weighing and measuring equipment of any description, save as is provided for in section 5 of this Act, and such additional inspectors as may be required for this purpose, and after two years from the commencement of this section no person holding office as an inspector of weights and measures shall act


as an adjuster of weighing and measuring equipment except under the supervision of a chief inspector or deputy chief inspector and with the express authority in writing of the Board.
We propose that this new subsection should be substituted for the subsection now in the Bill because, in Standing Committee, we quarrelled about the use of the word "organisation" in the Bill, and we had fears about what the word might imply in this part of the Bill dealing with administration, the duties of inspectors, and so on.
On that occasion, the Parliamentary Secretary tried to reassure us with his own interpretation of the word "organisation" and with the Government's intentions in this respect. He said that it was not the Government's intention to separate in each locality the two functions of testing, weighing and measuring equipment and adjusting weighing and measuring equipment. He said that they did not visualise that any weights and measure authority would set up two organisations, one for testing and one for adjusting. On reflection, we are not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's explanation.
Part of the trouble arises still from the use of the word "organisation" and part of it arises because we think that the Board of Trade has been looking at the problem through the eyes of a large urban authority. The Parliamentary Secretary has just given way on the last three Amendments and accepted something which I think he should not have accepted, and he is prepared to allow rural district councils to do all sorts of things which I consider they have not the scope to do.
While we accept the Hodgson Committee's view in principle that inspectors should not themselves adjust weights and equipment which they find defective, we suggest that this principle has to be set down in practical form. In the rural areas, in particular, it will be very difficult for a weights and measures authority to follow the terms of the Bill as they now stand. We quite agree with the Hodgson Committee's view and the principle which has been laid down that the same inspectors should not both test and adjust weighing and measuring equipment.
I visualise that it would be fairly easy to have the two separate functions organised within the weights and measures

department of a large town, a county borough, but we are concerned with the difficulties which, we believe, will arise in the county areas where, periodically, the county weights and measures department will set up a, so to speak, temporary one-day office in a school room to examine the weights and scales of the local shopkeepers. This is where we think the Bill falls down.
As I understand, a cavalcade of inspectors may descend upon the unsuspecting villagers. There will be a chief inspector to supervise the proceedings. There will be an inspector, perhaps with an assistant, as is the case now, to test the weights and scales, there will then be an organisation to adjust them. The Bill is silent about the composition of the organisation.
As I read it, if the testing inspector, to call him that, finds any weights deficient, he will have to make out a chit and give it to the shopkeeper together with the deficient weights and tell the shopkeeper to move four paces sharply to the left or to the right and hand the chit with the weights to the adjusting organisation. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the organisation at this stage would probably consist of one inspector, but all the Bill speaks of is an organisation. When the "organisation", the adjuster, has put the weights right, he will have to give the shopkeeper another chit, return to him the weights which have now been adjusted, and tell him to move smartly to the right or the left and give the chit and the weights to the first inspector so that the first inspector, whose job it is to test them—this duty has not been taken from him—may test the work of the adjuster and pass the weights as fit to go on the shopkeeper's weighing machine.
We think that this complicated procedure is quite unnecessary in the rural areas of the country. Indeed, it is quite unnecessary anywhere. We can see how the two organisations can work inside the weights and measures department of a town hall, but, when the job is to be done in a country village, then we think that this procedure is far too complicated and far too costly.
As I understand, what happens at present under existing legislation is that an inspector from the county authority, with an assistant, books a room in the village and lets all the shopkeepers know


beforehand the day and time that he will be there. The shopkeepers then come along with their weights and scales to be tested, and the inspector and his assistant do the job between them and check each other's work. Surely that is all that is needed.
The Parliamentary Secretary says, or more or less hints, that that is all that is to be done under the terms of the Bill. I can assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that the county inspectors are scared stiff of their interpretation of the words in the Bill. They think that they have got to go through all the complicated procedure which I described a moment ago. Therefore, we have drafted, perhaps not very successfully, a new subsection which we think covers the points that, we understand, the Parliamentary Secretary wants to put before us. We feel that the wording of the Bill is rather complicated.
/ do not think that there is anything between us on the point. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee want a simple administration here, but in the way that subsection (1) of the Clause now reads we certainly cannot have a simple organisation. As I have said, we think that is is far too complicated. Even if the Parliamentary Secretary is not prepared to accept the wording of our suggested subsection, I hope that he will arrange for the subsection to be looked at again in another place so that it can be made much clearer and so that we can assure county inspectors that they will not have to travel round their counties with two organisations.

Mr. D. Price: As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) very rightly pointed out, I do not think that there is very much between us on this matter. It seems that the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues place greater weight on the word "organisation" than we do. The hon. Gentleman seems to envisage a vast cavalcade proceeding round the counties of England in order that the provisions of the Clause can be implemented.
It is perfectly true that in Standing Committee hon. Members opposite expressed doubts whether the wording of the Clause—it seems that the word "organisation" was the sticking point—would allow a continuation of the existing practice under which an assistant responsible

for adjusting the equipment and the inspector responsible for certifying it as correct could work side by side.
As I said at the time, I am quite persuaded that the Clause as worded would allow this, and quite obviously this is what the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends want, and what I want. We do not believe that it requires the adjusting and the testing to be done in different premises by physically separate organisations. I hope that what I am saying today will reach out to the weights and measures inspectors in the counties and will make it quite clear to them that we do not mean that. The work can be done in the same room.
What the Clause does prevent—and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees with this—is an inspector, who is adjusting equipment, being asked later to certify it as correct. This is what the Clause tries to prevent it also tries to ensure that a separate person shall certify as correct the work done by the person adjusting. This, as the Committee will recall, was a recommendation of the Hodgson Committee. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee recognise the importance of it.
I, personally, am satisfied—I have looked into the matter since we discussed it in Committee—that the Clause as worded is reasonable, and I still do not accept the need for the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. As he very modestly pointed out, if we wanted to accept it there might have to be an adjustment in the wording. I say to the hon. Gentleman, however—being, I hope, a reasonable person—that I am quite prepared to have a further look at the drafting of the Clause to see whether an alternative to the word "organisation" can be used to make the intention even clearer, but, of course, there is no real difference between us as to what we want.
At the same time, having had one go at it, I do not promise the hon. Gentleman that I or my advisers will be able to find a superior form of words. None the less, I am quite prepared to have another shot at it, and, if we are able to find a better form of words, to undertake to put forward an Amendment in another place.

Mr. Bence: I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield,


Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) is intending to withdraw his Amendment, but this is an important matter, because the interpretation which he has put on the wording is the one that is accepted by the weights and measures inspectors. It would be rather unfortunate if a Bill passed from this Committee and was reported to the House containing a Clause with the wording with which the Minister was himself satisfied and which his advisers told him was wording with which he was quite right to be satisfied—that the interpretation of the word "organisation" meant this or that—whereas out in the country, where it would have to be acted upon, every weights and measures inspector understood the wording to be something else. It would be very unfortunate if that happened.
I have had reported to me, and from my own experience in this field I know, the dangers which may be created in this way. It is a very dangerous thing to suggest that a local authority may set up an organisation under the supervision of a weights and measures inspector. What do we mean by setting up an organisation? For instance, could a county council appoint as a place of inspection in a part of the county a small garage or a small workshop and circularise the shopkeepers and traders in the area to the effect that if they brought their weighing machines and equipment along to that place then, under the supervision of the weights and measures inspector, this organisation would adjust their weighing machines and equipment? This is how some weights and measures inspectors look at it.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary realises that the adjusting of weighing machines—not in all cases, but in many cases—means a technical operation. It is not just a matter of turning a screw, or of putting in a bit of lead, or of taking out a bit of lead. Very often, it is quite an expert operation. We are to set up an organisation which is responsible to the weights and measures inspector. If the person carrying out the adjusting of a weighing machine found, perhaps by chance or by inadvertance, that the machine had been tampered with, he would condemn it and would try to rectify it. I could give the Committee information concerning lots of wangles that can be employed. These are things which have been done from

time immemorial, and any weights and measures inspector will know of the dodges employed by weighing machine mechanics quickly to adjust an instrument by means which are certainly unscientific and which do not conform to sound engineering practice.
Under the Bill, an inspector of a county has the responsibility placed upon him by an organisation which he himself has not set up, but which the weights and measures authority has set up—an organisation, it may be, in another part of the county. He is not an adjuster; he is an inspector. It is clearly laid down that the inspector must not adjust that which he is to inspect. But an adjustment is often part of the inspection, and many weights and measures inspectors adjust a machine when they are inspecting it. There is a spirit level in some modern weighing machines by which one can tell whether or not the machine is level, and he may have to adjust that. That is an act of adjusting the machine. If one alters the level of the machine, one may make it inaccurate.
5.0 p.m.
Here we are making weights and measures inspectors responsible for all sorts of people who may be established in the organisation to adjust weighing machines throughout the county. This is a frightful and most dangerous situation, particularly in view of the fact that weighing machines which are coming on the market these days in ever-increasing numbers are highly complex scientific instruments. They are not the simple manual balances of forty years ago
I have seen weights and measures inspectors making adjustments when they are inspecting weighing machines. Why should they not do that? They are often more expert at the job than some of the weighing machine mechanics. Some weights and measures inspectors have been drawn from the weighing machine industry and were first-class mechanics long before they became inspectors. They have been trained in the job, and they have trained their assistants to do the job properly.
In the interests of the efficiency of the weights and measures service and of the weights and measures inspectors, I hope that it will be made clear before the Bill becomes an Act what is meant by an "organisation" and that we do not open


the door to the creation of a conglomeration of organisations in the interests of easy administration in county areas making weights and measures inspectors at the centre responsible for amateurs fooling about with very complex machines.

Mr. Darling: We must accept the Parliamentary Secretary's offer to look at this matter again. I hope that he will take into consideration the powerful representations made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) and our proposal to make it clear that the weights and measures inspectors can adjust their own equipment and the equipment in the local authority. In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 8.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS TO PART I.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 9, line 6, to leave out "extend".
The Clause empowers the Board of Trade by order to give effect to the recommendations of the Commission on Units and Standards of Measurement, which is set up by the Bill. The power to make orders is very wide and is conferred in language which goes very far, even to the length of saying that an order may extend to any provision contained in the Bill.
We do not like that wording, and we indicated that that was our view in Committee. We believe that the Bill's wording almost goes out of its way to invite too free and wide a use of order-making powers. We think that the power to extend is comprised in the power to amend which is conferred by the Bill, so that to that extent this can be regarded as a comparatively narrow point.
None the less, we think that the question of emphasis is important. Any undue emphasis on the extent of order-making powers is not desirable. It is undesirable explicitly to confer a power to extend the provisions of the Bill.

The Parliamentary Secretary has revealed a readiness to consider the matter. The hopes which he gave birth to, so to speak, in our hearts and minds are still sustained, and I hope that some concession will be made in this matter.

Mr. D. Price: An Amendment similar to this one was moved by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) in Standing Committee. As I explained then, the word "extend" is used here in relation to changes in the Bill which may be necessary in order to give effect to certain recommendations of the Commission on Units and Standards of Measurement. Matters on which the Board is empowered under subsection (2) to make orders which may involve extension of the Bill are strictly limited to a narrow field of purely scientific and technical interest. But, within this narrow field, extension may be necessary if the Commission's recommendations are to be carried out. For instance, the definition of a unit of time or a thermometric scale may be introduced into the First Schedule by virtue of a recommendation of the Commission. The purpose of including the word "extend" is to make clear what we mean.
As I told the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill in a letter which I sent him after our discussion in Committee, although we agree that the word "extend" in addition to "amend" may not be strictly necessary since "amend can be regarded as covering "extend", we think that it helps to clarify the subsection. As we intend, if the Commission so recommend, to extend the provisions of the Bill, it would be more proper to let the word extend" remain in the Bill. Since we discussed this in Committee, I have given some thought to this matter, and I still feel that it is proper to leave the word "extend" in, although, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, this is a comparatively narrow point.
I hope that, with that explanation, the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move, in page 9, line 18, to leave out from "thereof" to the end of line 19.
During the debate on the Clause in Standing Committee, hon. Members


asked why it was necessary to have the phrase
any irregularity in the appointment of any person to be a member thereof
in subsection (4).
It was suggested that it could mean that the Commission could function irregularly for years because an irregular appointment had been made. I expressed some sympathy with that point of view, and, after considering what was said in Committee, I have come to the conclusion that it is not really necessary to provide in the Bill for any possible irregularity in the appointment of members of the Commission.
I therefore hope that this Amendment will commend itself to the House.

Mr. Darling: I am glad the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted the criticisms that we made of the use of the word "irregularity" in Committee. I suppose that we may now take it that the Minister is convinced that he is quite incapable of making an irregular appointment to the Commission, or may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman has been assured that it will not make a great deal of difference if an irregular person is irregularly appointed? I am sure it is the latter case that allows the Parliamentary Secretary to ask us to take these unnecessary words out of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 11.—(WEIGHING OR MEASURING EQUIPMENT FOR USE FOR TRADE.)

Mrs. Harriet Slater: I beg to move, in page 12, line 40, to leave out from beginning to second "and".
This is an Amendment similar to one which we moved in Committee. We then left out more words than it is proposed to leave out by this Amendment and the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that if we left out the words "which remains undefaced" we should be making a great mistake. We took notice of what he said and we now find the words in the Bill, about which we feel very strongly,
otherwise than by reason of fair wear and tear".
In Committee we argued what would be fair wear and tear. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East

(Mr. Bence) gave us a great speech on "spit and polish", saying that it was possible that if the plug had not been put in securely a wrong weight would be given. The other argument was that if the plug had not been put in properly and there had been too much spit and polish the plug could wear away. We had a long debate on this. I still maintain the point that I made in Committee, namely, that in the main the Bill is to protect the consumer. I agree that the trader has also to be taken into account, but the purpose of the Bill is fundamentally to see that the consumer gets a fair deal. We maintain that there should be no loophole by which there could be short measure. In Committee an Amendment was accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary which, unless the trader is made responsible, would make it difficult for the weights and measures inspectors who check whether short weight is being given.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I support the Amendment because I believe that it could have far-reaching consequences. If the subsection is not amended the responsibility of deciding whether a stamp is defaced by reason of fair wear and tear or by some other means will be placed upon the inspector of weights and measures. This would be both unnecessary and unjust.
In Committee, I drew attention to what I considered would be the effect upon a very young inspector, starting out on his first job, who was called upon to make a decision in such a case. Assume, for instance, that he honestly feels at the time that the defacing of the stamp was not by fair wear and tear but by some deliberate act. He decides to prosecute the trader and, after the case has been heard by the court, it is dismissed. In that event he would be very loth to take a similar case to court on a future occasion. If he did so and the court again dismissed the case, I suggest that it would be the last time that he would institute such a case. At least, he would not be anxious to repeat that experience. Such an experience could have a bad and lasting effect upon the future of any young inspector. The burden of taking the responsibility of deciding whether the defacing had been deliberate or by means of fair wear and tear is unfair to the already


hard-worked Inspectorate of Weights and Measures.
I maintain that the responsibility should be placed upon the trader himself. Would it not be a better solution to place upon the trader the onus of informing the weights and measures inspector when he sees or believes that a stamp is becoming or has become defaced? If he did this, he could then request that the machine or other weighing instrument should be renewed forthwith by the Inspectorate. By so doing, he could absolve himself from the risk of prosecution under the Clause, and responsibility for the renewal of the stamp would be for the weights and measures inspector or the department.
The Clause as it now stands is a let-out for arguing fair wear and tear if a trader is confronted by an inspector who finds the stamp defaced. Since this was discussed in Committee a number of traders in my constituency have told me that they would prefer a provision such as this rather than the uncertainty that now exists under the Clause. It would be far more satisfactory for the decent and honest trader who, under the present arrangements, could become the innocent victim of the existing uncertainty. It would also be more likely to curb the activities of the dishonest trader. The Clause as framed is a complete let-out for the trader who makes a virtue out of dishonesty, and it makes it easy for him to get up to all sorts of dodges to sidetrack the law. Whatever the reasons for the defacing of the stamp, fair wear and tear will always be the excuse in these cases.
The law-abiding and honest trader, who I recognise is in the majority, will always have the uncertainty of not knowing whether he will be believed or prosecuted for a dishonest act. Too heavy a burden will be placed upon the weights and measures inspectors.
We should say that if the Bill is intended to give a measure of safeguard to the consumer, the responsibility in this instance should be placed upon the trader. I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider what we have said and to see whether he cannot find a way to meet the wishes of this side of the House in this important matter.

Mr. D. Price: The Amendment is similar to one moved by the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke on Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) in Committee and upon which we had a fairly lively discussion. This Amendment is an improvement upon the earlier one, but I still cannot advise the House to accept it.
The discussion in Committee was confined almost entirely to the stamps on the lead plugs which are found in most weights and weighing machines. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), who gave us the benefit of his experience in these matters, pointed out that in these instances the surface of the lead on which the stamp is placed is normally below the surface of the surrounding metal and the stamp is, therefore, not normally susceptible to wear through cleaning or abrasion in use.
Weights and scales are not, however, the only weighing and measuring equipment used by traders. There are measures of capacity and of length, on which the stamp is sometimes placed directly upon the outer surface of the measure and sometimes on a blob of solder on the surface. In such cases, as well as with brass weights which are not required by existing regulations to be provided with adjusting hales, there is a strong likelihood that the stamp will get worn.
The general principle of the law is that equipment may remain in use for trade so long as it remains accurate. It is quite possible for equipment to remain accurate although the stamp has become partially defaced by fair wear and tear, especially by cleaning. If the Amendment were accepted, many items of equipment which enjoy a long and useful Fife would have to be submitted for retesting and restamping at frequent intervals. Since every stamping would involve payment of a fee and would cause inconvenience, the owner of equipment would be put to much unjustifiable expense.
The hon. Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) raised the question of an imaginary young inspector who tries to bring a prosecution under the law and fails. That is simply a hazard of being an inspector. If we were to say that every young policeman should be able to win every prosecution


for a parking offence, because if he lost it he would lost heart in his duties, the administration of the law would be brought to a state of affairs that all hon. Members would find objectionable.
The possibility of failing in a prosecution would apply not only to this Clause, but to many other Clauses of the Bill under which an inspector has the duty, where appropriate, to institute proceedings. That is simply an occupational hazard of being an inspector. The fact that a young inspector's early enthusiasm—like, perhaps, undue enthusiasm by young policemen in parking offences—may be conditioned somewhat by the fact of learning that magistrates require to be properly satisfied as to evidence does not seem to me to be an entirely undesirable experience. I should have thought it a rather healthy one unless the administration is to be turned upside down in favour of young inspectors who might lose heart by losing prosecutions. The hon. Member for Rhondda, East is a reasonable man and is always solicitous of people's liberty. If he thinks the matter over, he will, I think, realise that he rather overstated the case of the young inspector.
In reply to the hon. Member's second point, the responsibility for maintaining measures accurately falls upon the trader. This responsibility is not changed by the Bill. The position is merely that if the trader can show that the mark is defaced by fair wear and tear, but the measure is still accurate, that would be acceptable. If, however, the stamp is defaced and, in addition, the measure is not accurate, the young inspector's prosecution would in all likelihood succeed. The emphasis is upon the fact that the measure must remain accurate. I hope that with this explanation, the House will realise that it would be right to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: The Parliamentary Secretary is attempting to tell the House that fair wear and tear does not matter. If a lead plug on which the stamp is usually printed is below the surface of the machine, obviously it would not be affected by ordinary wear Arid tear and, therefore, the stamp wound remain for anyone to see. There is, therefore, no necessity to

include the reference to fair wear and tear within the Bill, because there would be no wear and tear on the stamp.
The hon. Gentleman has stated that the stamp is normally below the level of the surface. It can, however, be on the surface and by continual rubbing it might be removed. For a long time it might continue to be used even though it might be imperfect. Until an inspector came to examine the machine, no action would be taken. When the inspector came, the trader might claim that the stamp had been removed by ordinary wear and tear. This position sounds farcical.
We are not troubled about the stamp which is below the surface, because it cannot be affected. If it were rubbed out below the surface, obviously it would be because of unfair methods, either cleaning or trying to remove an essential part of the weight. This would make the machine imperfect. The inspector would point out that there was no reason for the stamp to be removed if it was below the surface and did not come into contact with anything. Therefore, there is no reason for including in the Bill the reference to fair wear and tear. If a stamp which was below the surface was removed, I should say that it was because of unfair wear and tear.
The Parliamentary Secretary has not made his case. I hope that he will reconsider the Amendment, which is an attempt by this side of the House to make it more difficult for any trader to deceive and defraud the public.

Mr. Darling: I take the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary that the Clause goes wider than merely weights in a normal weighing machine and deals with other kinds of weighing and measuring equipment. For that reason, the words
otherwise than by reason of fair wear and tear
should be deleted from subsection (2).
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has frequently pointed out, we are dealing with complicated and, in many cases, delicate machinery, of which it would be difficult for an inspector who found it to be deficient to say that the deficiency had been caused by tampering or by wear and tear which had not been fair and that therefore the trader with this


kind of equipment should do something about it. The inspector would need to satisfy himself whether the deficiency was caused by fair wear and tear or by action on the part of the trader.
5.30 p.m.
This will be an extremely difficult decision for the inspector if he is called upon to take it in the form in which the instruction is given in the subsection. If the Clause were left to read like this, leaving out the qualifications:
No person shall use any article for trade as equipment to which this section applies"—
that is, weighing and measuring equip-ment—
unless that article or equipment has been passed by an inspector as fit for such use and bears a stamp indicating that it has been so passed which remains undefaced.
I do not think anything more would be needed. We ought not to put in the subsection a provision enabling a trader who has tampered with his equipment to say, "I have not tampered with it. It has gone out of balance through fair wear and tear."

Mr. D. Price: Perhaps I might help the hon. Gentleman. I think he is reading a good deal more than is justified into "fair wear and tear". This is only in relation to defacement of the stamp. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will think in terms of a half-pint pewter pot, which doubtless he has used. It could still give a half-pint measure although the actual lettering on the stamp had become defaced through fair wear and tear. That is an instance. If someone removes a bit of lead in a plug, that is not fair wear and tear.

Mr. Darling: I was coming to that point. I agree that what we are referring to is the stamp on the equipment. This may be something which could be tampered with—I do not know—but even in that circumstance I do not see why:
otherwise than by reason of fair wear and tear
should be included here. We are giving far too much away and not allowing the inspector to carry out his duties properly where he finds that weights and balances have been tampered with and stamps defaced in the course of the tampering. We are making it much too difficult for the inspector in deciding whether the tampering was done by the trader or by

reason of fair wear and tear. I cannot see why these words need to be included.

Mr. Victor Goodhew: I hope that my hon. Friend will not give way to the pressure from the Opposition. I fully appreciate the anxiety of hon. Members opposite to ensure that the consumer is not "done" at any time, but I feel that they may be a little oversensitive about this. I cannot help feeling that the point at issue is whether the measure is correct or not. That is all that the inspector will have to worry about. If the measure is accurate, the fact that the stamp may have become worn through the cleaning of a pewter tankard is probably a sign that the tankard is clean and not unhygienic. I feel that the difficulties of the inspector have been exaggerated, and I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will resist the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 16.—(OTHER OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH EQUIPMENT.)

The Parliamentary Secretary for Science (Mr. Denzil Freeth): I beg to move, in page 18, line 29, at the end to insert:
(2) Without prejudice to the liability of any equipment to be forfeited, it shall be a defence for any person charged with an offence under subsection (1) of this section in respect of the use for trade of any equipment to show—

(a) that he used the equipment only in the course of his employment by some other person; and
(b) that he neither knew, nor might reasonably have been expected to know, nor had any reason to suspect, the equipment to be false or unjust.
The purpose of the Amendment is to meet an important point which was raised in the Standing Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). I am very pleased indeed and honoured to have his support, as shown by the fact that his name is attached to the Amendment on the Notice Paper.
In discussion in Committee hon. Members drew attention to the possibility that under the Clause as drafted a shop assistant might be prosecuted and convicted for using false or unjust scales even though he was entirely innocent of any responsibility and completely unaware that the scales were not accurate. The hon. and learned Genthgpan said:
We do not want to be oppressive to traders or, perhaps, in particular, to their employees


who in many instances may be using unjust and false weighing equipment entirely innocently, at least from the ethical point of view."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B. 29th November, 1962; c. 146.]
I promised to look at the point to see whether we could find a better form of words, and I think that the form of words which I am now proposing meets the point which hon. Members had in mind.
It is very important when we are talking about an employee to realise that the term employee "can cover a wide variety of persons occupying a wide variety of posts. The word can stretch from a person who holds the very responsible post of managing a large store in a multiple grocery chain down to the shop assistant who may merely be 18 years old and only just starting. A manager, of course, is generally responsible for the weighing equipment which is under his charge, and if he fails to ensure that it is checked and if it is then found to be false or unjust I do not think any hon. Member would suggest that he should escape liability.
We have, therefore, laid down in subparagraph (b) of the Amendment three conditions for establishing a defence: namely, that the employee neither knew, nor might reasonably have been expected to know, nor had any reason to suspect, the equipment to be false or unjust. I think that this would give a very reasonable defence to the young and innocent employee, but it would not exonerate—I am certain that it would not be right to exonerate—the employee who, despite lack of knowledge, might reasonably have been expected to know that the weighing equipment was unjust, such as a manager or an assistant who had a clear responsibility for looking after it. Nor do the words I am proposing exonerate the employee who had reason to suspect that the scales were unjust; for example, the assistant to a barrow boy who might from his general observation have good reason to know that the scales were not all they should be. I think that in that case hon. Members would agree that the employee should not be automatically exonerated.
I therefore recommend the Amendment to the House, not least because it has the support of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I think it would be appropriate if I expressed my gratitude to the Parliamentary Secretary for his treatment of this matter and for the Government's decision on it, and I do so.
At first sight, the juxtaposition of the names of the hon. Members supporting the Amendment somewhat startles the eye, but the explanation, as will be readily recognised, lies in the circumstance that this was, as the Parliamentary Secretary indicated, a point that we took in Committee, when an endeavour was made by some of us on the Opposition side to find wording for an Amendment which would cover the case. The principle was agreed upon, and now a skilled draftsman, if I may mention this with respect, has put the point in what I think all of us on this side of the House regard as admirably chosen language. The point is met and covered.
In these circumstances, and having sufficiently explained, I hope, for every purpose why the President of the Board of Trade and I are united on this point, I think I may say that my hon. Friends and I welcome the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH PUBLIC EQUIPMENT.)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I beg to move, in page 19, line 34, to leave out "Subsections (2) to (4)" and to insert "Subsection (2)".

Perhaps it might be convenient for the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, if we discussed with this Amendment the following five Amendments:

In page 20, line 11, at end insert:
in connection with any such equipment as aforesaid".

In line 13, leave out"question". In line 14, leave out "the" and insert "any".

In line 15, leave out "the" and insert "any".

In line 17, leave out "the weighing or measuring" and insert:
any, or any purported, weighing or measuring by means of that equipment".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, if that is convenient to the House.

Mr. Freeth: The six Amendments are interconnected. They deal with a point


raised in Committee—it is referred to in column 179 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—by the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). She moved an Amendment to page 20, line 17 of the Bill. That Amendment was designed to ensure that the person who issues or uses a written statement of the weight or measure of goods which have not been actually weighed or measured shall be guilty of an offence. The hon. Lady instanced a case in Birmingham where no weighing had taken place but where a weight ticket had been issued.
I agreed then that she had raised an important point and I gave an undertaking to look at the wording of the Clause again in order to make certain that this kind of practice would be prevented by the Bill. These Amendments are designed to produce that effect. They will ensure that if an attendant at a public weighing machine delivers a false statement of the weight of anything, or makes a false record of any weighing, he will be guilty of an offence. It will also make it an offence for any person, whether an attendant in charge of weighing or measuring or some other person, such as the driver of a vehicle, to commit any fraud in connection with weighing or measuring or any purported weighing or measuring by means of public weighing equipment.
This means that if an attendant issues a statement of weight purporting to be the weight of an article, vehicle or animal which he has not actually weighed, he will be guilty of an offence. Similarly, if he does not weigh the vehicle but gives the driver a blank ticket in order that the driver can insert a false statement of weight himself, then both attendant and driver will be guilty of an offence. The Amendments also cover the purloining of tickets by drivers and the insertion of fictitious weighs thereon.
I hope the hon. Lady will agree that we have met the most important of the points she raised in Committee and I therefore commend the Amendments to the House.

Mrs. Slater: I am sure that we are all grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for these Amendments, as will be the majority of weights and measures inspectors, who have made this point many times in their annual reports. They will

be glad that their case has at last been met. As we said in Committee, this sort of fraud is quite easily undertaken, through tickets either being stolen or wrongly filled in. We are now going a long way to preventing these frauds, which have been very difficult for the weights and measures inspectors to deal with so far.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 20, line 11, at end insert:
in connection with any such equipment as aforesaid".

In line 13, leave out "in question".

In line 14, leave out "the" and insert "any".

In line 15, leave out "the" and insert "any".

In line 17, leave out "the weighing or measuring" and insert:
any, or any purported, weighing or measuring by means of that equipment".—[Mr. Denzil Freeth.]

5.45 p.m.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I beg to move, in line 20, after "If" to insert:
in the case of a weighing or measuring of any article, vehicle or animal carried out by means of such equipment as aforesaid".
During our discussion in Standing Committee on this Clause, the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) moved an Amendment designed to ensure that a person bringing an article to be weighed or measured, but not actually going so far as to have it weighed or measured, would not be guilty of an offence if he failed to give his name and address when it was demanded of him.
I agreed to look at the drafting of the Clause to make certain that this could not happen, and this Amendment is designed to meet that point. It has the effect of requiring a person's name and address to be given when demanded, only if the weighing or measuring actually takes place.

Mr. Darling: Although I am a layman, I now understand the Clause very well indeed, and I think that this is an occasion when one should pay tribute to the Parliamentary draftsmen. This Clause was very tricky but now, following all these Amendments, it will be quite understandable to the layman. The


Parliamentary draftsmen have done a first-class job. As a result of the intervention of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine), the Clause is now better, with their help, than it was before.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) has said about the drafting of this Clause following these Amendments and I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for this Amendment. Although it was a comparatively small point, the Bill as origin. ally drafted might in certain circumstances have been oppressive, but now that difficulty and danger have been overcome.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22.—(OFFENCES IN TRANSACTIONS IN PARTICULAR GOODS.)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I beg to move, in page 24, line 13 to leave out
or for delivery after sale
Perhaps it might be convenient if we discuss at the same time the next Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, in line 14 at end insert:
(aa) except in the course of carriage of the goods for reward, has in his possession for delivery after sale, or.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir William Anstruther-Gray): So be it.

Mr. Freeth: These Amendments deal with the same point, one which was raised in Committee when we discussed subsection (2) of the Clause. It was pointed out that as the subsection was drafted someone who was merely delivering goods might be liable to an offence if it were discovered that the goods he was delivering and of which, for the time being, he was in possession, were in fact wrongly marked goods, even though he was in no way responsible for making up the goods and in no way connected with the transaction except that he was transporting the goods from the seller to the buyer.
We have considered this point again and we agree that the subsection as drafted is too wide in this respect. We certainly agree that persons who carry goods for reward, such as common carriers, should not be liable for an offence under this subsection in respect

of goods in their possession for delivery after sale, and the Amendments will ensure that such persons are not so liable.
This matter was raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne) who also referred to the van driver or the messenger boy. I said that I would also look at their case. However, these persons would not be covered by the Amendments since they would not normally be carrying goods for reward. Quite frankly, I do not think that it would be right wholly to exempt such persons, because in some cases the deficiency might actually be caused by the van driver or messenger boy.
On the other hand, we have to take into account first of all that normally proceedings would be taken under Clause 22 (2) against a messenger boy or a van driver only if it was pretty obvious that he was the person who had actually caused the deficiency. If the hon. Gentleman cares to refer to subsections (1) and (4) of Clause 27, he will see that they contain ample opportunity for such a van driver or messenger boy, when wrongly accused, to plead that he was not the person responsible for the offence, and that the person responsible was the person who sold the goods or made them up. I think, therefore, that we have met the points raised in Committee.

Mr. Darling: This was a proposition which was first raised to protect the innocent errand boy. I remember that, when I was involved in many Committee sittings on the Slaughterhouse Act, in order to make matters clear to everybody we had to refer to the diligent slaughter-man. We have now referred to the innocent van driver, the innocent employee and the innocent errand boy, and I believe that all of them in their innocence can thank us for doing so much on their behalf to see that their innocence is fully protected.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 24, line 14, at end insert:
(aa) except in the course of carriage of the goods for reward, has in his possession for delivery after sale, or.—[Mr. Denzil Freeth.]

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I beg to move, in page 24, line 19, after second "in", to


insert "or on". At the end of the meeting of the Standing Committee on 11th December, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) suddenly shot at me the question whether the words "or on" ought not to be in the Bill. I said at that time that I would not like to give an answer hastily. At leisure, I looked at the matter. The hon. Member is quite right and I thank him for helping us to put these words in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(PLEADING OF WARRANTY AS DEFENCE.)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I beg to move, in page 29, line 21, after "person" to insert "resident in Great Britain".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The next two Amendments may be discussed with this, if that is convenient; that is to say, the Amendments in page 29, line 37, after "inaccurate" to insert "and" and in page 29, line 38 to leave out from "and" to the end of line 42.

Mr. Irvine: This covers a matter to which we gave some consideration in Committee. Clause 25 provides for a defence in proceedings under Part IV, namely, the defence that a person charged may show that he bought the goods from some other person as being of the quantity referred to in the first subsection of the Clause and
that he so bought the goods with a written warranty from that other person that they were of that quantity or, as the case may be, did so conform.
Our view is that it is not desirable that this defence should go too wide and encourage any degree of casualness on the part of the sellers of goods.
Our Amendment would have the effect of confining the defence of the warranty to the case of a warranty given by someone resident in Great Britain. The result would be that the trader who sold imported goods in this country would be under the duty and obligation of making his own investigation and inquiry when receiving from an exporter the kind of warranty mentioned in the Bill.
It seems to us appropriate that he should have that duty, and we are asking in such cases only that the importer

should have the duty of ensuring that any undertaking which he has received from a foreign seller of goods is fulfilled in the consignment, and that the quantities are what they have been represented to him as being.

Mr. D. Price: The Amendments are identical to some which were moved by the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) in Committee. As the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) has pointed out, they would have the effect of depriving any trader who imported goods of the defence of warranty in any proceedings for an offence relating to the quantity or pre-packing of those goods.
During our discussions in Committee, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) referred me to what he called the Public Health (Preservatives in Food) Regulations, and the Public Health (Anti-Oxidant in Food) Regulations, claiming in support of his argument that those regulations threw the onus on the importer of proving that the goods he was selling complied with the terms of the regulations. I assume that the hon. Member was referring to the Preservatives in Food Regulations, 1962, which is a Statutory Instrument, and the Antioxidant in Food Regulations, 1958, also a Statutory Instrument. I have studied those regulations carefully and I have consulted the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food which is responsible for them. As a result of those discussions, I must disagree with the hon. Member's interpretation of those Statutory Instruments.
Under both sets of regulations, importers have the same defence of warranty as any other traders, and that defence is to be found in Section 115 of the Food and Drugs Act, 1955, under which both sets of regulations were made. To all intents and purposes, the provisions of that Section, particularly subsection (2), and of this Clause are the same.
As I said in Committee, the Government believe that it would be an unreasonable discrimination against an importer to withhold this defence from him. He would have the whole burden and responsibility of ensuring the accuracy of quantity and compliance with the prepacking requirements of the Bill. The


Clause already provides that a defendant who is relying on a warranty from an overseas supplier has to meet all the conditions set out in subsection (1) for those relying on a warranty from a British resident. In particular, in the words of subsection (1), the person charged has to show that he
had taken reasonable steps to check the accuracy of that statement".
We believe that those words are also a sufficient requirement in respect of imported goods. A person who imported without taking reasonable steps to check the accuracy of the statement of weight would not be able to plead warranty as a defence.
I believe that this means that the difference between the hon. and learned Member for Edge Hill and myself would be a rare case. The vast majority of cases, which he clearly has in mind, of the importing of goods, particularly from a slightly dubious foreign source where there might be doubt about credentials, would be caught by the wording which I have just read to the House. But in the odd case in which there has been a reputable overseas supplier and over the years the importer has done his sample checking, but in which the rare case arises where there is short weight, warranty is a reasonable defence in answer to a charge of short weight. This is allowed at home, and I see no reason why it should not be allowed for the importer of foreign supplies, bearing in mind that there is the additional requirement in Clause 25 (1, c). This is a sufficient additional requirement in respect of imported goods and I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. R. E. Winterbottom: The net weight of the contents may vary by reason of the fact that the container may vary. Would a test case on one article be sufficient to clear the importer in a court of law in respect of the whole consignment?

Mr. Price: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find this dealt with in other Clauses of the Bill where we deal with the whole question of whether, if one article in a large consignment is found to be of short weight—perhaps one article out of a few millions which the man is producing—he can plead as

a defence that the sample is not sufficient to prove the offence.
With regard to net weight or gross weight, when we get to the Schedules the hon. Gentleman will see that the treatment of whether it should be net or gross weight, or whether it should be a specified quantity, varies according to the products, and these elaborate Parts of Schedule 4 relate to that matter.
With regard to whether an article has to be sold by specified quantity or sold by net weight, there is no distinction between produce which has emanated from a foreign source and been imported, and produce emanating here. A person exporting to this country has to abide by all our regulations when the produce comes here.

Mr. Douglas Jay: The Parliamentary Secretary said that in the earlier stages of the Bill my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) quoted other legislation and argued that what we were here proposing was embodied in other legislation. The Parliamentary Secretary assures us that this is not so, but our case does not rest wholly on quoting other legislation.
This really is a matter of commonsense. There ought to be an obligation on the trader in this country to satisfy himself that there are no inaccuracies, instead of merely producing a warranty from somebody outside the United Kingdom who is not subject to our courts. The hon. Gentleman says that this is not really necessary because there is an obligation on the seller of the goods in this country to show that he has taken steps to check the accuracy of the statement. He says that this really means very little distinction between what we are proposing and what is contained in the Bill. If this is so, what is his objection to going what he regards as a small step further and accepting the commonsense suggestion of my hon. and learned Friend and laying on the seller of imported goods the same obligation as lies on the seller of goods which are not imported? If the Bill says that the person must have taken reasonable steps to check the accuracy of a statement, then what my hon. and learned Friend is proposing is not far different, and I do not see the reason for objecting to it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Mr. Deputy-Speaker rose—

Mr. Jay: I do not know whether any other hon. Member wishes to take part in the discussion, or whether we are to have an answer from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Wainwright: I am concerned about what may happen if an importer, in collusion with an exporter from another country, makes arrangements for the delivery of goods which are not of the quality, size, or weight specified on the container. If such an arrangement is made, it will be extremely difficult to prove that the importer in this country is playing fair and square and being just to the person to whom he in turn passes those goods.
The final purchaser of the goods is the consumer. If he discovers that the goods are lacking in quality, weight, or quantity, it will be extremely difficult for him to discover who in the first place was responsible for producing faulty goods. The retailer, the wholesaler, and the importer, will in turn say, "I accepted in good faith what was stated on the package". The importer will be absolved from any blame because he will be able to say, "The person from whom I purchased the goods indicated to me that the quality was as stated". I therefore think that we ought to make certain that the importer bears some responsibility for checking the quality of the goods.
Some importers are genuine people, and, as I said in Committee upstairs, it is not the genuine people whom we are seeking to prevent from carrying on their business. We are after the small minority of people who, by various methods, defraud the public. For this reason I do not accept the view that the importer should not have placed on him the responsibility for checking the goods. If the person from whom the wholesaler has purchased the goods is resident in this country, should those goods prove defective, the responsibility can be traced back to him, but if the business is transacted with an exporter from some other country, the Bill as it stands leaves the public wide open to fraud. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will look into this more seriously than he has done so far.
It is our duty as a House of Commons to ensure that no one can easily defraud

the public. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept the Amendment, there will be an easy loophole in the law for the public to be defrauded.

Mr. D. Price: With respect to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright), I do not think that he has studied the wording of this Clause very carefully. This is not an easy loophole. We are dealing with the pleading of warranty as a defence. This means, in the first instance, that a person is being prosecuted. Therefore, prima facie blame has been pinned on a person, and we are dealing with the excuses, if I might so call them, which a court can take into account when that person is pleading his case.
It is not correct to suppose that if a chap says that he merely imported the goods he will get away with it. He has to satisfy paragraphs (a), (b) and (c), and paragraph (c) requires
that the person charged had taken reasonable steps to check the accuracy of that statement".

Mr. Charles Loughlin: What does that mean? What does the whole of paragraph (c) mean? It concludes with the words quoted by the hon. Gentleman, but a wily bird could get away with murder under this paragraph.

Mr. Price: I should be happy if the hon. Gentleman could explain to me how he reckons somebody could get away with it.

Mr. Loughlin: I am asking what it means.

Mr. Price: During the proceedings in Committee upstairs I gave examples of the sort of steps a person would be expected to take. The most obvious one is a sampling technique, preferably on a statistical basis. One could take a sample based on the best statistical recommendations.

Mr. Wainwright: The hon. Gentleman may remember that I referred to collusion between the exporter and the importer into this country. If collusion takes place it is quite easy to provide the necessary defence as the Bill stands to be absolved from all blame.

Mr. Price: I think that the hon. Member has a very low opinion of our magistrates' courts and our High Court if that


is his view when there has been real collusion. All our laws are passed on the basis that those who administer them judicially are intelligent people. I should have thought that the number of hon. and learned Members in the House would have provided the hon. Member with adequate evidence that our courts are extremely well manned. I do not share the hon. Member's view. If he goes on the basis that our laws are not properly administered and our magistrates and judges are complete fools, it makes nonsense of a great deal of the legislation which we put through the House.

Mr. Wainwright: Mr. Wainwright rose—

Mr. Price: I must move on to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) who was arguing a different point, which I would also put to the hon. Member for Dearne Valley. The right hon. Gentleman was arguing that in view of subsection 1 (c) and the words at the end of it there was little in common sense between the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill and myself in this matter and that it was a very small step forward from the case that I have been arguing to that which the hon. and learned Member had been arguing. I believe that there is a very real further step. I have listened with care but I still advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: What are the reasonable steps which the hon. Gentleman has in mind and which he thinks the importer

could say he had taken in a case of this nature?

Mr. Price: The most obvious is a proper system of sampling, based on statistics.

Mr. Wainwright: I think that the hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Member will remember that we are a House and not in Committee. If he wants to ask a question let him do so by all means, but he has already made one speech.

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Wainwright: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary where he obtained the information that I have such a low opinion about persons connected with the law of the land? If that is his view he ought to tell me how he has arrived at it. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that anybody who indulges in collusion with another person will divulge that collusion, he is adopting a supercilious manner at the Dispatch Box. Is the hon. Gentleman also saying that, in spite of the excellent representatives of the law we have in this country, people have never got away with collusion? If he thinks that he should have another look at the many relevant cases which have come before the courts.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 217.

Division No. 74.]
AYES
[6.16 p.m.


Abse, L[...]e
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Gourlay, Harry


Ainsley, William
Chapman, Donald
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)


Albu, A[...]sten
Cliffe, Michael
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)


Allaun, [...]tank (Salford, E.)
Collick, Percy
Gunter, Ray


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hamilton, William (West Fife)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Cronin, John
Hannan, William


Barnett, Guy
Crosland, Anthony
Harper, Joseph


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, w.)
Crossman, R. H. S.
Hart, Mrs. Judith


Bence, Cyril
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hayman, F. H.


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Dalyell, Tam
Healey, Denis


Benson, Sir George
Darling, George
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regis)


Blackburn, F.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhonnda, E.)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)


Blyton, William
Davles, Harold (Leek)
Hilton, A. V.


Boardman, H.
Dempsey, James
Holman, Percy


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Dodds, Norman
Houghton, Douglas


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Leics, S.W.)
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)


Bowles, Frank
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Hoy, James H.


Boyden, James
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)


Bradley, Tom
Evans, Albert
Hunter, A. E.


Bray, Dr, Jeremy
Fernyhough, E.
Hynd, John (Attercliffe)


Brockway, A. Fenner
Forman, J. C.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Ginsburg, David
Janner, Sir Barnett


Carmichael, Neil
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas




Jeger, George
Oliver, G. H.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Oram, A. E.
Spriggs, Leslie


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S)
Oswald, Thomas
Steele, Thomas


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Panned, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parglter, G. A.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Parker, John
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parkin, B. T.
Stress, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Jones, T, w. (Merioneth)
Pavitt, Laurence
Swain, Thomas


Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Taverne, D.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Peart, Frederick
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


King, Dr. Horace
Pentiand, Norman
Thomas, Iorworth (Rhondda, W.)


Lawson, George
Popplewell, Ernest
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Tomney, Frank


Loughlin, Charles
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wainwright, Edwin


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rankin, John
Warbey, William


MacColl, James
Reynolds, G. W.
Weitzman, David


Mclnnes, James
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Mackie, John (Enfield, East)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Whitlock, William


McLeavy, Frank
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Wigg, George


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Rodgers, W. T. (Stockton)
Wilkins, w. A.


Mapp, Charles
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)
Willey, Frederick


Marsh, Richard
Ross, William
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Mellish, R. J.
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Mendelson, J. J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Milne, Edward
Short, Edward
Winterbottom, R. E.


Mitchison, G. R.
Silverman, Jullus (Aston)
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Moody, A. S.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Woof, Robert


Morris, John
Skeffington, Arthur
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mulley, Frederick
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke N.)



Neal, Harold
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Small, William
Mr. Redhead and


Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby, S.)
Soreneen, R. W.
Mr. Charles A. Howell.


NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Dalkeith, Earl of
James, David


Altken, W. T.
d'Avigdor-Godsmid, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwish)


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)


Allason, James
DrayBOn, G. B.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Arbuthnot, John
du Cann, Edward
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Eden, John
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Kerans, Cdr, J. S.


Balniel, Lord
Elliott, R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton


Barlow, Sir John
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kershaw, Anthony


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J,
Kimball, Marcus


Bell, Ronald
Farey-Jones, F, W.
Kirk, Peter


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Fell, Anthony
Kitson, Timothy


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Finlay, Graeme
Leather, Sir Edwin


Bidgood, John C,
Fisher, Nigel
Leavey, J, A,


Biffen, John
Forrest, George
Leburn, Gilmour


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Freeth, Denzil
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Bishop, F. P.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Black, Sir Cyril
Gammans, Lady
Lilley, F. J. P.


Bourne-Arton, A.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk Central)
Lindsay, Sir Martin


Box, Donald
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Braine, Bernard
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Brown Alan (Tottenham)
Goodhart, Philip
Longbottom, Charles


Buck, Antony
Goodhew, Victor
Longden, Gilbert


Bullard, Denys
Gower, Raymond
Loveys, Walter H.



Grant-Ferris, R.
Lubbock, Eric


Bullus, Wins Commander Eric
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. A.
Gurden, Harold
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLaren, Martin


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N. Ayrs)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hastings, Stephen



Cary, Sir Robert
Hay, John
Maddan, Martin


Chataway, Christopher
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Maginnis, John E.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hlley, Joseph
Maitland, Sir John


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Cole, Norman
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas


Cooke, Robert
Hobson, Sir John
Mathew, Robert (Honlton)


Cooper, A. E.
Holland, Philip
Mawby, Ray


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hollingworth, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Corfield, F. V.
Hopkins, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Coulson, Michael
Hornby, R. P.
Mills, Stratton


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Dame P.
Miscampbell, Norman


Crawley, Aidan
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Montgomery, Fergus


Critchley, Julian
Hughes-Young, Michael
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Hurd, Sir Anthony
Morgan, William


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Morrison, John


Curran, Charles
Iremonger, T. L.
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey

weight from one basket to another so that at the retail end he is selling 8 oz. We put all this in to encourage an inefficient system of marketing. With an efficient system of marketing, with an efficient transport system and with proper packing and containers, there would be far less loss of weight. Some experiments which are being conducted by sending pre-cooled fruit by special rail containers show that there would probably be no loss of weight if the job could be done quickly. The Parliamentary Secretary will know of these experiments carried on by the now defunct Horticultural Marketing Council in conjunction with the railways and certain growers' co-operatives. If this system were common throughout the country, it would be possible to get fruit and vegetables into the retail shops with practically no loss from dehydration, because they would get there much more quickly.

I speak from experience, because the only city in this country with a sizeable modern wholesale fruit and vegetable market is Sheffield. I have had opportunities to study what goes on there. Sheffield has a wholesale market with rail connections. Many markets have no rail connections. This is one of the problems. Because there are proper cold storage facilities at Sheffield, strawberries come from Norfolk overnight to Sheffield and are sold in the retail shops in the middle of the next morning. In such trans-shipments there is no loss worth noting. Sheffield can do it because it has a modern market.

The Parliamentary Secretary is writing something into the Bill which is contrary to the whole principles of the Bill. He is doing this merely to defend an inefficient system of marketing. I am sure he would agree that the sooner we clean up the wholesale marketing and the general arrangements from growers to retailers the better. Everybody wants this, and there is no dispute between us about this.

Surely the way to do it is to say that the operation of the principles of the Bill in relation to fresh fruit and vegetables shall be delayed until marketing has been reorganised. In the meantime, let us take even the rewritten Clause 33 (3) out of the Bill, because it is contrary to the whole spirit of the Bill and it should not be there.

Mr. Bence: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling). I have heard it argued that this provision must be in the Bill because it is impossible to pre-pack fruit and vegetables and state their net weight, especially with certain kinds of fruit and vegetables. I cannot accept this contention. For years I have bought in retail shops all kinds of pre-packed fruits and the net weight has been stamped on the package. In supermarkets the weight is stamped on. I have bought grapes, strawberries, currants, plums, figs and peaches in France. One can go right down the Mediterranean coast, through Spain and right down the Italian Riviera to Rome and find supermarkets in which any fruit imaginable can be bought. It is all pre-packed and the net weight is stated on the packet.
However, we are back in good old England, where it is argued that this legislation cannot be passed because we have Smithfield Market, and that market has not got this or that. It is also argued that this has never been done before. We have Covent Garden, and we never know where that is going to be. The same applies to Billingsgate Market and the rest of them. We are refusing to realise that the world is marching on. We are passing legislation which will make this country remain, from the marketing point of view, in the nineteenth century.
This is a tragic and shocking thing. Everyone knows that machinery and equipment is being manufactured throughout the world—it is even being manufactured and exported from this country—which is capable of pre-packing, folding, boxing and packaging almost everything imaginable. These machines do the job efficiently and effectively and give the customer a clean, wholesome product to its accurate net weight. But no. The Government must consider the merchants and shops and retard progress.
We have passed a number of Acts in recent years, including the Clean Air Act, forcing a lot of people to go to considerable expense for the good of the country. Many people have had to take out their fire grates, install central heating and do other things, perhaps having to spend £100 or more on their homes to bring them into line with new legislation. Despite all this the Government are pandering to certain marketing ideas and will not do the right and logical thing.
A lot is said about entering the export market. I recall a friend of mine telling me that had we gone into the Common Market there would have been tremendous openings in Europe for our products. I can assure hon. Members that if those products had been delivered to the French, German and Italian markets—and I am thinking of products like raspberries and strawberries—in the same condition as they are sometimes delivered to the retail markets in this country, not a single one would have been sold. The shopper in those countries would not accept our products if they were packed and handled in the way I have described.
Even some of the back street markets in many European countries ensure that their products are displayed in a way superior to some of our best shops in this Metropolis of London. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hillsborough will continue to protest about Clause 33 (3) because some of the ideas it contains are almost amazing. This idea that a person can go into a large store, buy some strawberries or raspberries and then go to another part of the store to a weighing machine to check the weight of the purchased product is most unacceptable and I am shocked that in a Bill of this sort, which contains so many good things and a number of progressive moves, there should be a Clause of this nature.
The Bill in effect calls on those who are marketing goods to pull their socks up, install better equipment and arrange more hygienic conditions. In the last few years several Measures have been passed in which food is sold and distributed, improving all the time the conditions in which food is sold and distributed. In Clause 33 (3), however, we are stopping that progress. We are clinging to the marketing conditions of the past, and I hope that my hon. Friend, whose strong feelings on this subject I share, particularly as to the Government's pandering to a marketing system which does not fit into the twentieth century, will press the Amendment. In these more enlightened days we have the speedy delivery of goods by air, rail and other methods. Yet, despite the advances that have been made, the

Government seem determined to ensure that marketing goes on under conditions only fit for the nineteenth century.

Mr. Edward Milne (Blyth): I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) has said, for in a Bill which contains a number of improvements and has many admirable features the Parliamentary Secretary has not seen fit to deal efficiently with this controversial Clause 33 (3). This subsection violates an important principle of consumer protection, namely, the disclosure of the weight of pre-packed foods to enable the customer to assess if value for money is being obtained. Thus it shifts the onus from the retailer or seller to the purchaser.
Not only is the subsection reprehensible in character but it carries many complications for the consumer and the retailer. I am not giving away any secrets when I say that a good deal of consternation was expressed by hon. Members on both sides when this matter was discussed in Committee. During those discussions one of my hon. Friends revealed some information he had received on this type of selling from the Oxford Consumer Group. That group instanced an important example; a supermarket in Oxford that had tomatoes, carrots, apples, bananas, onions and other commodities being sold in packages of from 12 to 17 oz. each package which the customer assumed to contain 1 lb. in weight. When the prices of the articles were measured against the prices being charged by other establishments in the town, it was discovered that the price per lb. was considerably higher than elsewhere.
I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to consider what would happen in a busy supermarket or self-service store on a Saturday morning, with customers scurrying here, there and everywhere, many of them having to weigh products themselves to see exactly the amounts they are receiving and then having to calculate the price of their purchases. For the small shopkeeper the expense of additional scales for the use of the public would amount to between £70 and £100.
When this matter has been discussed by the trade the question of shoplifting has always come into it. Shoplifting is,


naturally, a greater temptation to certain people when shopping in supermarkets and self-service stores. Under the Bill it will be made easier, with customers walking to and fro with articles, purporting to be looking for scales on which to weigh their purchases. On the other hand, the flustered shopper, not in the least thinking of shoplifting, will be wandering about looking for scales on which to weigh the purchases and trying to find out precisely the price of the goods being bought.
When one considers shopping practices at present and the practice of marking down prices by competing supermarkets in the same area one can see, particularly under the Clause as drafted, why some people have fears about sharp practices entering into the trade. Customers may be buying goods which have been marked down in price, totally unaware of the fact that in addition to the price having been reduced the quantity in the packages may also have been reduced. The Parliamentary Secretary should look closely at the Clause because my hon. Friends and I believe that it violates an important part of consumer protection.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not wish to reiterate what has been said. But the Parliamentary Secretary has, at least in part, accepted some of the many objections to this provision in that it is to apply solely to fruit and vegetables. Here we are attempting to safeguard the consumer against receiving goods which are underweight. I do not for a moment think that the Minister is not attempting to meet a situation which he thinks may arise. But hon. Members will know from practical experience that this provision will result in a burden being placed upon a large number of retailers and no useful purpose will be served. There are small retailers who may think that they have a responsibility to provide scales or weighing equipment for the use of customers and that there must be a notice exhibited in their shop indicating to customers that the equipment is available for their use. Many small shopkeepers may regard this provision, when the Bill becomes an Act, as making it mandatory on them to purchase such equipment at a cost of £70 or, as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Milne), at a cost of £100. I do not think that

the average small shopkeeper should be placed in such a position.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said that this provision would safeguard the inefficient marketing system of the horticulture industry. It is my view, which I hope I may present to the Parliamentary Secretary in a reasonable manner, that scales will be bought by small retailers who can ill afford the expense. This equipment will not be used by customers. It will merely be a wonderful monument to the good intentions of the Minister. In many instances, although customers may suspect that the goods they have purchased are under weight, they would not dream of weighing those purchases. There is a psychology of trading in these matters, particularly in respect of transactions with small shopkeepers. The customers would never dream of questioning the actions of "Mr. Johnson", "Mr. Jones" or "Mr. Brown"—or whatever may be the name of the small trader. I do not see the point in wasting the money of these tradesmen by creating the impression in their minds that they must have this equipment.
If the Minister is of the opinion that the horticultural industry has inefficient marketing methods, instead of safeguarding them by placing responsibility on retailers, he should consult his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in order to see what may be done to improve the methods of marketing horticultural produce. I beg the hon. Gentleman to look at this matter again to make sure that he is convinced that this provision should apply even to fruit and vegetables.

Mr. D. Price: Perhaps it would be convenient if I now attempt to answer one or two of the questions which have been asked, and particularly to reply to the helpful comments of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), who, I think, is under a misunderstanding, or, if he is not, is under the impression that shopkeepers wilt misunderstand this matter.
I wish to make clear that if this Amendment be accepted a small shopkeeper would satisfy the obligation placed upon him by the provisions in this Bill if he did what is laid down in subsection (2) where it states:
For the purposes of this Act and any instrument made thereunder … the quantity


shall be deemed to be made known … (a) if the goods are weighed or otherwise measured … in the presence of that person …
This would mean that the local fruiterer could do what my local fruiterer does and place purchases on the scales in the presence of the purchaser. There would be no need for someone who was not running a supermarket to instal scales.

Mr. Loughlin: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to meet the point. But I submit that a number of small fruit and vegetable retailers now sell goods which are pre-packed, including potatoes, carrots and all sorts of fruit.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member would agree that even if the retailer were selling pre-packed goods he could still satisfy the requirements of Clause 33 by putting the goods on the scales in the presence of the purchaser. As I visualise it, this will apply only in the case of the supermarket. The object of the exercise in the supermarket is not to have the shop assistant actually present. The business is done at the far end by the exit, where everything is totted up and one pays at the desk. It is the object in this type of retailing that there should not be a shop assistant present.
Different considerations apply to the small shop where one deals direct with the shop assistant. I know very well that there is an increasing amount of trade now in pre-packed fruit and vegetables. For instance, this winter I have seen a lot of cranberries coming in pre-packed. The shop assistant would pass such a pack over the scales, as many of them do now, in front of the customer, and this would satisfy the requirements of subsection (2).
The rather quaint procedure provided for in subsection (3) had to be created, as it were, because of the problem of the supermarket. There is no reason why the small shopkeeper who continues to serve his customers direct, weighing the things in front of them—as my fruiterer does where I live--should have the fear expressed by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West that he will have to spend £70 on scales to satisfy a provision which, in fact, does not apply to him because he is not indulging in the supermarket form of trading.

Mr. Darling: There is a contrary point here. The hon. Gentleman is preventing the small greengrocer from setting up inside his shop a series of shelves from which customers may help themselves to pre-packed vegetables or fruit, handing the money to the shopkeeper as they go out. This is a very convenient method of trading inside a small shop. The hon. Gentleman is saying to the small trader that he may not do this unless he spends £70 on providing another scale on which customers may themselves weigh the goods.

Mr. Price: If the place is small enough, the shopkeeper can weigh the goods when they come to the counter where his scales are.

Mr. Darling: No, that will not do.

Mr. Price: Another point which hon. Members have not appreciated arises in this way. Particularly in the type of shop to which the hon. Member for Hillsborough refers, a problem is created by the evaporation from soft fruit which takes place during the course of the day. The hon. Gentleman will say that when we have absolutely up-to-date shops with all the proper equipment the shopkeeper will put his punnets of strawberries, for instance, on a properly cooled shelf and this will reduce greatly the likelihood of evaporation. I accept that this would be so in the sort of retailing which he and I would dearly like to see, but I suggest that the small shopkeeper is the one least in the position to provide such facilities for laying out his fruit. Even if we had the changes in horticultural marketing which the hon. Gentleman would like to see—he knows that I have considerable sympathy with his views—it would still be very difficult to overcome the problem of evaporation from soft fruit, particularly during the course of a hot summer's day. I am perfectly prepared to accept from the hon. Gentleman that one day it should be possible to do so.
The hon. Member for Hillsborough made the general point that this is giving a premium to inefficiency in horticulture. I do not consider that it is appropriate in this Bill to tackle the whole business of horticultural marketing. It would be unfair to retailers, to wholesalers and, above all, to producers if we laid down stringent conditions when the marketing system was not yet adequate over the country


as a whole for them to be able to comply with the conditions relating, let us say to the selling by net weight which, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman would like. He said that we are legislating for a long time. Equally, as I said in my introduction, we are, under the Amendments, taking order-making powers so that it will be possible gradually to reduce the number of products covered by Part VII of Schedule 4 to which this will apply.
7.15 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman took exception to the fact that these powers, which we all admit have a very restrictive application, were put in the main body of the Bill. Subsection (3) is governed by the order-making power, and it is this order-making power which the hon. Gentleman and I hope will be used to reduce the number of products covered. I ask the hon. Gentleman to accept—I say frankly that it makes no difference to me personally whether it goes in the Schedule or in the body of the Bill—that it is more proper that this provision should go in the main body of the Bill when in it is involved an order-making power, and that one should not tuck order-making powers in the Schedules if one can avoid it. This is not my own invention. I am advised that that is the proper way to do it, and I like to do things in accordance with the practice of the House.
I hope that, after these few further words of explanation, the House will accept the Amendments.

Mr. Darling: May I, by leave, explain the difficulty which we are in on voting here? Some of my hon. Friends do not, I think, quite appreciate that, if we vote against what we regard as a quite inadequate subsection and series of Amendments, we shall, if our vote is carried, go back to the original subsection (3) and this would be even worse than what is now before us. Therefore, under protest, we have to accept what is proposed.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 38, line 7, leave out from "of" to "any" in line 8 and insert "weighing for himself".—[Mr. D. Price.]

Clause 35.—(LOCAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES AUTHORITIES IN SPECIAL AREAS.)

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move, in page 41, line 32, to leave out from "be" to "direct" in line 33 and to insert:
subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament".
During the debate in Committee on Clause 35, the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) moved some Amendments which would have had the effect of taking away from the Board of Trade powers to designate, by order, local weights and measures authorities within the Greater London area. During the debate, he suggested that an order under this Clause should not be simply a matter for the Board of Trade, but should be a matter for Parliament to decide upon. When I made my reply, I was under the impression that these orders could be prayed against, but I have since discovered that I was wrong. I apologise to hon. Members who were Members of the Committee for having given a false impression.
The Government agree with the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North, that Parliament should have the final say in connection with any such order. The Amendment would ensure this.

Mr. Darling: We are very grateful for the Amendment. We thought that there was a weakness in the original Clause, and this will now remove it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 39.—(INSPECTION OF AND INQUIRIES INTO LOCAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ARRANGEMENTS.)

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move, in page 43, line 24, after "make" to insert "reasonable".
During the debate in Committee on the Clause, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) moved an Amendment to leave out subsections (1) and (2) relating to informal inspections of local weights and measures arrangements by Board of Trade officers. In discussing this Amendment in Committee hon. Members suggested that the main difficulty arose from the wide scope of subsection (1, c) and that this difficulty would largely be met if the concept of


"reasonableness" in subsection (1, b) were also included in subsection (1, c).
I agree to consider the matter, and I am happy to accept the suggestion that subsection (1, c) should provide only for reasonable inquiries to be made. That is the purpose of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 41.—(INSPECTORS OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.)

Mr. Darling: I beg to move, in page 45, line 33, at the end to insert:
(3) Any chief inspector or other inspector whose appointment is terminated for reasons of incompetence to perform such duties as are prescribed in this Act may appeal to the Board for an inquiry into the termination of his appointment, and if the Board are satisfied as a result of such inquiries that the appointment was wrongly terminated, they shall so inform the local authority and the local authority shall rescind the termination on such terms as the Board shall approve.
We discussed this matter in Committee, and, although the Parliamentary Secretary said that in normal circumstances an inspector, who might be in difficulties concerning his competence with his local authority would have a right of appeal to the Board of Trade, he could not see that this would often happen in practice and that the cases would be so few and far between that we should not legislate for them. We have proposed the Amendment because, on thinking the matter over and discussing it again with representatives of the Weights and Measures Inspectorate, we believe that there is a need here, and it has become more obvious because of an Amendment which the Parliamentary Secretary accepted earlier today.
Two points are involved. The first concerns the status of weights and measures inspectors. We have said throughout our discussions on the Bill and on the two previous abortive Bills, when we had the opportunity to make our views known here and there, that in time—we hope that it will not be very long—weights and measures departments of local authorities will become increasingly important and will cover a much wider range of activities, which are not covered in the Bill and therefore they cannot be discussed in detail. We believe that the weights and measures departments and

the weights and measures inspectors will be, so to speak, the focus of consumer protection legislation in so far as it requires local application.
We believe that weights and measures inspectors will be almost on a par with local medical officers of health and other people in high positions in local authorities who have the right of appeal in certain circumstances to the appropriate Government Department. Directors of education have the right of appeal to the Minister of Education and medical officers of health have the right of appeal to the Ministry of Health. We believe that the chief weights and measures inspector and inspectors working under him in a local authority should have the right of appeal to the Board of Trade.
Obviously, if a chief inspector is dismissed from his post on the ground that he is not competent to carry out the duties laid down in the Bill, his appeal can be on the ground of competence only. We are not here concerned with character or with whether he gets on with his local authority. We are concerned with whether he is competent to do his job. In certain local authorities, the local councillors are in close contact with their local weights and measures inspector because of the smallness of the local authority. I do not know whether it has happened or whether it will happen, but it may be that a local inspector gets on the wrong side of local councillors who are engaged in trade. He is the person who will interfere or intervene in their trading activities. It may be that they will reach the point at which they do not like the weights and measures inspector and decide to get rid of him on the ground that he is incompetent. This could be very damaging.
All that we suggest is that, just as certain other local government officers have the right of appeal to the appropriate Minister, weights and measures inspectors who are dismissed because of alleged incompetence shall have the right of appeal in order to vindicate themselves and to prove to the Board of Trade that they can do their job. We are therefore concerned, first, with the status of inspectors, which we think will increase. They will become more and more important in local and national affairs. Secondly, there can be pressure from local councillors on weights and measures


inspectors operating in a small local weights and measure authority. I do not think this kind of pressure could possibly be brought to bear in a county borough or county council because there the size of the administration is such that all kinds of pressures which might exist on the inspector are cancelled out inside committees of the council. I therefore do not think that this sort of thing would happen in a large weights and measures authority. It might happen in the kind of authority which the Parliamentary Secretary to-day has been asked to set up. Even if it is never used, we should provide weights and measures inspectors who are dismissed from their posts with the right of appeal.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I support the Amendment for one very simple but fundamental reason. I believe that it is the inherent right of a Britisher to appeal against a dismissal, and it is important that the Amendment should be accepted for that reason alone. What should be clearly understood is that the Amendment makes it clear that the right of appeal is solely against dismissal on the ground of incompetence to perform such duties as are desecribed in the Bill. The Amendment provides that appeal may be made to the Board of Trade for an inquiry into the termination of the appointment. I believe that a dismissed chief inspector, or any other inspector, is entitled to have his case heard, and I feel that the Board of Trade is the most competent body to pass judgment about whether the action is justified.
I served for some time as the chairman of a local authority committee which dealt with weights and measures. If I were in that position today, I should feel much happier and much more satisfied if what is proposed in the Amendment were in the Bill. It would give a great measure of satisfaction to the inspectors and would provide a safeguard which is not now provided. It would not take away the power of dismissal of the local authority if it is satisfied that such power should be exercised. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Amendment in the belief that it will improve the Bill considerably.

Mr. Wainwright: I support what has been said by my hon. Friends. There is a danger in small councils that someone

will dominate the issue in an affair of this kind. If an inspector happens to have crossed the path of a very important person on the local authority when carrying out his duties, he could be placed in an invidious position.
In so far as the Government have accepted an Amendment which entitles rural councils to make application to be an authority of this kind, it is all the more dangerous for an inspector who is carrying out his duties in a diligent manner. The smaller the authority the greater his danger. I should not like to create the impression that this will happen frequently or even on any occasion, but I think that we should make certain that the position of the inspector is safeguarded. If we allow the local authority to have the power to dismiss the inspector without appeal, then his status is not as high as it should be, because from time to time he will be afraid of crossing the path of some very important person on that authority.
7.30 p.m.
Another important matter is that it is not a question of his just being dismissed. His whole future is at stake. If he has been dismissed wrongfully and has been carrying out his duties diligently, and this is not brought out by some kind of inquiry, that person's whole future will be changed and he will have the greatest difficulty in getting a job with another local authority.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) mentioned the status of the Board of Trade as being that of a kind of high authority for passing judgment on such an issue. He gave the impression that the Board of Trade would be the highest form of authority on this issue. I would not place so much faith in the Board of Trade as to say that, but in the event of there being any action taken against an inspector that was unjust or unfair, I have every faith in the Board of Trade searching out the facts.
What worries me is that if an authority dismissed an inspector and it was proved that he was wrongfully dismissed, it would not alter the fact that he would still be in an invidious position in getting his job back with the authority. Despite the fact that this Amendment will strengthen the Bill, it would seem that we cannot safeguard the inspector to the extent that


we should like. But I am certain that the Amendment, if accepted, will place him in a stronger position than he is now.
It is the duty of the Government to ensure that a servant of this kind, who is the servant of a council, shall be safeguarded. Having been a member of a local authority for 20 years, I can appreciate the position of any person working for a local authority. If I go back in history, I can appreciate even more the dangers of dismissal for the slightest reason or the slightest difference that a person may have with a member of a local authority. Therefore, I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. D. Price: This Amendment would give inspectors of weights and measures the right of appeal to the Board if they were dismissed for incompetence. This question was raised in Committee on the Motion "That Clause 41 stand part of the Bill", and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) then suggested that—and he has made a passing reference to it again today—there were precedents for this in other local authority fields. Since the Committee stage I have looked into this. I agree with him that there are some cases where local authority officers cannot be dismissed without the consent of the appropriate Minister. But, I suggest, these cases all have an historical background, some of them dating from the time when the Minister in question was responsible for the whole or the greater part of the local officers' salaries. There has, so far as I am aware, never been any provision in weights and measures law for an appeal by an inspector of weights and measures against dismissal. I think that the hon. Member will agree with me on that. Neither has the central Government ever been responsible directly for any part of these officers' salaries. Therefore, the cases to which the hon. Gentleman drew attention are not, I think, entirely relevant.
In the great bulk of cases—this is the important thing, particularly in view of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright)—local authority employees have no right of appeal to the Minister of the central Government Department. Personally, I

do not think it proper to provide in the Bill such a right for weights and measures inspectors, as distinct from all the other local government employees.
The sort of problems which the hon. Member for Dearne Valley and, to a lesser extent, the hon. Member for Rhondda, East were reciting to the House, indicate a matter which should be discussed in the context of local government generally and not particularly in the context of weights and measures inspectors. Further, I suggest that as the local authority is made by this Bill, and as the local authority has been by previous legislation, the employing authority, this is a matter for consultation between the professional or trade union bodies to which the local government employees belong and their employers.
One knows that we have tended in this country to leave these matters for collective bargaining between representatives of the employees and the employers, although not to the same extent as some of the continental countries have in laying it all down by statute. We cannot, of course, put it in black and white but that has been the general tendency. Yet the hon. Members for Dearne Valley and Rhondda, East think that there is a serious danger of undue influence being put on a weights and measures inspector.

Mr. G. Elfed Davies: I did not suggest that I was afraid of influence. That was not the point that I was making. My point was that the decision which will be made on a man's competence under this Bill would be the local authority. That is what I want to drive home. I would be more satisfied if the decision were made by a lay body which could give the right of appeal.

Mr. Price: I take the point made by the hon. Gentleman. I refer back again to the point which I thought that the hon. Member for Dearne Valley was making. That was the suggestion that without this right of appeal on matters of competence a weights and measures inspector might find himself subjected to undue pressure from a member of his committee which he could not withstand. Theoretically, certainly that is a situation which could apply to an officer in any side of local government activity. I do not know how serious the matter is or how often there have


been cases of that nature over the whole of local government, but if this is a problem it should be tackled within the general context of local government and not specifically in the context of weights and measures.
As to technical competence, we do not believe that this is a practical issue, because the few cases of dismissal of which we in the Board of Trade are aware and of which we have records have all been on grounds of character defect, which would not be covered by the Amendment, and not on grounds of lack of competence by inspectors.
An inspector of weights and measures must possess a certificate of qualification granted by the Board of Trade to the effect that he has sufficient skill and knowledge for the proper performance of the functions of an inspector. An appeal to the Board of Trade against dismissal on grounds of technical incompetence could, therefore, be judged only by re-examination of the inspector by the Board. I suggest that it would be an unusual and unprecedented step to require a professional officer to resit his qualifying examinations later in life to determine whether he retained the technical skill and knowledge that were necessary for his duties.
If a barrister, for example, loses a case, his client might feel that he had not pleaded the case as well as possible, but that does not give the client the right to demand the Bar Council to insist that the barrister resits his examination for the Bar. A doctor whose patient dies is not required to resit his medical examination. I do not believe that this is desirable or that it deals with the practical issue. All our records show that over the years, the very few inspectors who have been dismissed have not been dismissed on the ground of technical competence. We are dealing with a problem that certainly has not arisen in the past, and for the substantial objections which I put forward earlier I cannot recommend the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Darling: The Parliamentary Secretary has adroitly evaded the issue. In Clause 42, part of which the hon. Gentleman quoted, the Board of Trade lays down a rule that only people who possess sufficient skill and knowledge

for the proper performance of their functions as inspectors will be so employed. The Board of Trade is to govern their qualification; it will decide whether a person shall be employed as an inspector.
All that we are saying is that, having established the position that the Board decides whether an inspector can be employed by a local authority, if a local authority dismisses an inspector and he considers that allegations about his competence as grounds for his dismissal are not accurate, he should have a right of appeal to the body which stipulates the qualifications and decides whether he should be employed.
The precedents that the Parliamentary Secretary tried to quote are beside the point, particularly if we consider them a little more carefully. Take education, for example. The Parliamentary Secretary said that we should leave these matters to the collective bargaining of local government. I hope that if we accept the hon. Gentleman's suggestion of withdrawing the Amendment, he will treat his view as a precedent to be followed by the Minister of Education. That would be a very good idea.
7.45 p.m.
As I said when proposing the Amendment, the real point at issue is the status of the inspectors. They will become more and more important. I do not think that the N.A.L.G.O. procedures for dealing with these matters would be appropriate for inspectors. They have to come nearer to those for medical officers of health and directors of education in the local government hierarchy and we must provide that kind of protection for them. It may be that the Parliamentary Secretary has been advised that this is unnecessary because there are no cases on record of inspectors being dismissed for incompetence.
Again, however, we are looking to the future. We are not considering the past, I am confident that, in the wider scope that we intend the weights and measures administration to have, provision of this kind is necessary.
We can, of course, make sure that the matter is dealt with again in another place. To give the Parliamentary Secretary and his advisers an opportunity to think it over again, because they have been forthcoming on many of these


administrative problems and we do not want to cause them too much difficulty at this stage, and in the hope that they will take note of the sensible representations that we have made, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 48.—(GENERAL POWERS OF INSPECTION AND ENTRY.)

Mr. Wainwright: I beg to move, in page 48, line 37, at the end to insert:
(d) stop at all reasonable times any vehicle carrying solid fuel for sale or delivery to a purchaser for the purpose of carrying out his duties under this Act.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): With this Amendment will be discussed also the following one, in page 49, line 37, at beginning insert:
Except as is provided for in subsection (1) (d) of this section".

Mr. Wainwright: The Amendment is intended to ensure that weights and measures inspectors continue to possess a power which they have held for well over seventy years. We are surprised that the Government have not accepted what was said in Committee when we discussed this aspect of the Clause.
The reason why the Amendment has been so worded is that we fully appreciate that an inspector would be reasonable at all times when he wanted to stop a vehicle. It is, I think, accepted that weights and measures inspectors are rational people. They are moderate and they are logical in thought and action in carrying out their duties. That being so, the Government should accept our Amendment.
On two occasions in Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary for Science made fairly long speeches in trying to convince my side of the Committee that we were wrong in our suggestions about the powers that should be conferred upon weights and measures inspectors. I have read again the hon. Gentleman's speeches and I still cannot see that he put forward any reasonable argument. If one accepted what the hon. Gentleman said, one could only assume from it that he did not have much faith in the weights and measures inspector in carrying out his duty.
The suggestion that an inspector might stop a vehicle in a very busy road takes

a little accepting. If that is one of the reasons why the Amendment is not being accepted, it is hard for the Opposition to appreciate the attitude of the Government representatives. Who would believe that a weights and measures inspector, believing that someone was trying to defraud the public, would go on the M.1 to stop the vehicle during its journey? The Bill lays down that an inspector may inspect a lorry at the commencement of its journey and wherever it stops to deliver its goods to the customer, but during the period of transit he has no power to stop it. I should have thought that an inspector who was trying to stop a vehicle on the M.1 would be acting very imprudently and foolishly.
But that could be one of the places to stop a vehicle if its driver wanted to comply with the request of an inspector, because he could pull over to the hard shoulder and rest there. But we are not talking about delivering solid fuel a great distance. Usually solid fuel is delivered over only a short distance. Several miles at the outside—unless a firm is buying it from a colliery and conveying it to its works. But that has no connection with what we are trying to do on this issue. We are trying to prevent a trader from defrauding the public, and for that reason we ought to give as much power as possible to the inspector.
To say that an inspector might stop a vehicle in a busy town or a narrow street means that one does not place any faith in his common sense. I should very harshly criticise any inspector who stopped a vehicle so as to delay traffic going through a town, and I notice that the Parliamentary Secretary for Science nods in agreement on that point.
We are trying to ensure that the inspector shall retain a power which he has had for at least seventy years. Incidentally, it is about fifty years since a weights and measures Bill passed through the House of Commons, and on this occasion we want to ensure that the inspector shall retain that power for a further fifty years because we think it is a reasonable power.
I have examined the whole problem to find out why there should be any objection to our proposal. So far as I am aware, there has been no complaint in the past that an inspector has gone outside his duties, has acted foolishly,


has caused a hold-up of traffic in a town or city or has caused an accident by stopping a vehicle in a very narrow road. The Government have brought forward no evidence of that sort to back up their statements. What are they afraid of? Why will they not accept the Amendment? It is accepted that an inspector could have traffic signs with him, and he could easily place them in a safe spot in order to stop a vehicle.
An inspector would want to stop a vehicle because he had received information that the trader or employee was delivering to a purchaser goods which were not of the proper weight or quality. The inspector might want to stop the vehicle while the goods were being conveyed. Under his present powers he could do that at a certain place which he knew the vehicle would be likely to pass through. What would happen if the Amendment is not accepted? The driver of the vehicle would probably know the car being used by the inspector or would see the inspector standing on the pavement ahead of him, and he would only have to keep his vehicle moving and the inspector would have no power to stop it.
There would be nothing to prevent the lorry driver, knowing that the inspector was on his track, from continuing his journey for two or three miles and delivering the solid fuel. The difficulty about checking solid fuel is that it is in bags or other containers which are tipped into a place or receptacle in which solid fuel is kept, and usually there is already some similar fuel there. This makes it very difficult for the inspector. He may come along twenty minutes later and find that all the material has been delievered, and he may decide to take it out and weigh it, and then he may discover that the quantity is in excess of the amount purchased by the consumer. A person could be trapped only when the receptacle or place for the solid fuel was empty—there would have to be a prior arrangement with the customer—before the delivery was made. However, the lorry driver, knowing that the inspector was on his trail, might decide to go back to the depot and take off the short-weight bags or fill them up.
I know that there are only a very few traders who defraud the public, but

we want to prevent them from doing so. That is why we want the Amendment inserted in the Bill. When my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) moved an Amendment in Committee which contained the words "cause to be stopped", the Parliamentary Secretary for Science said that that would give the inspector power to erect a barricade on the road in order to stop a vehicle. I agree that that could be so, but I can imagine what action would be taken against an inspector who erected a barricade in a roadway and help up all the traffic merely because he wanted to stop a certain trader.
8.0 p.m.
If he has no way by which to catch such a person in the act, he will enjoy very poor status among those in authority.
The inspectors have had this power for seventy years, without complaint, as far as I am aware, from the public, the police or anyone in authority. I do not understand why the Government do not wish them to continue to hold this power. Perhaps it is because the Minister of Transport is not carrying out his responsibilities so that traffic is becoming highly congested in most parts of the country. But there again, we could surely trust an inspector not to stop a vehicle in a congested town for examination for perhaps fifteen or twenty minutes but to have it driven off to a public weighing machine straight away.
Here is an opportunity for the Government to make certain that the inspectors have the power to carry out their duties. No worthwhile argument was put forward against this principle in Committee. I understand that the representatives of the Inspectorate wish the power to continue. I am all in favour of it. I want to make sure that those traders who want to defraud the public, no matter how few they are, are prevented from doing so, if possible.
There was much argument in Committee about sand ballast and things of that sort, but there is a vast difference involved in the price of the materials. Solid fuel is high priced by comparison. Smokeless fuel, which will be more and more widely used in the future, is even more expensive than other types. It is the Government's duty to ensure that people who buy solid fuel get the correct weight and quality.
After all, that is what we have weights and measures inspectors for, and the Government must ensure that they have the power to carry out their duties. We must remember that these solid fuels are bought in sacks by people with small incomes, and the cost does not leave them much out of the poor pittance they get. We must make certain that they get full value.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this Amendment. It is a good one. It is wanted by the inspectorate. I do not see why we should not give it to them or at least allow them to retain the power they have had for seventy years in order to carry out their job efficiently.

Mrs. Slater: I make no apology for returning to this very important subject. Some of us consider that the principle involved is of very great importance, firstly, to the inspectorate, and, secondly, to the consumer. Under the Bill, an inspector has the right to enter premises at which he has reasonable cause to believe there may be a fraud. I am quite sure that the inspectors also feel that they should have the same right to stop a vehicle carrying solid fuel, where they have reasonable suspicion that short weight is being carried.
I said in Committee, and I say again, that the sale of solid fuel lends itself, more than the sale of any other commodity, to frauds of this kind. Perhaps seventy years ago, when coal was so cheap, it did not seem to matter so much, but bags of solid fuel now cost a great deal and it is important to protect the consumer from fraud.
The question of boundaries is involved here. A trader might load up at a wharf—as we call it in Stoke-on-Trent—and then, on the journey, find that a weights and measures inspector is on his track. Instead of going on to the place where he was to deliver the coal, the man may easily escape by leaving that inspector's area. The only way then for the inspector to catch him would be to ring the police in the hope that a police car would arrive in time and stop the lorry.
The Parliamentary Secretary for Science replied to this point in Committee. He made the point that the inspector could either inspect a lorry at the wharf or

follow it and check up the load when it was delivered. But the driver might have the correct weight on the weighbridge and then, round the corner, take some fuel out of each full bag and put it in one or two empty bags. This is not exceptional. It happens regularly. I was a member of a committee which had to dismiss more men for this kind of fraud than in any other part of the business, for the sale of solid fuels, as I have said, lends itself to fraud so easily.
Of course, an inspector may catch a man measuring out extra bags from a load already weighed as correct, or he may go to the place of delivery in the hope of catching the man there. But all that will be very much more difficult, particularly as coalmen do not have to carry any scales and the customer herself has no real redress because we are making it extremely difficult for her, under this Bill, to get the coal check-weighed.
In Committee, the Parliamentary Secretary suggested that we were arguing that a weights and measures inspector should be able to stand in the middle of the road and force a lorry to stop. A few minutes ago we were told that these inspectors had a lot of common sense. We agree, and we think that they would not be difficult and awkward if they had power to stop vehicles when they suspected that fraud was being committed. We are not saying that everybody will commit fraud. We know that there are honest traders, but the Parliamentary Secretary must appreciate that coal is a commodity which is dear and whose cost, apart from rent, is the biggest item in an old-age pensioner's budget. We have to take every precaution to prevent fraud.
The Parliamentary Secretary also said that the Government would turn down our proposal because they had had representations from the Ministry of Transport and the British Road Federation. There are occasions when representations even from the British Road Federation and the British Transport are completely unfair. The people who are prepared to carry on frauds of this kind may find that it pays them to risk a fine. Although they will be fined if they are caught, they may find that the number of times they can escape more than compensates them for the fine.
Every report by a weights and measures inspector which I have been able to read refers to the danger of fraud with solid fuels. The inspectors have met the problem and have seen the difficulties. If the Parliamentary Secretary had discussed this proposal with the Institute, or with individual inspectors, he would have found that their view was that they would be more sure about preventing fraud if they had this power and did not have to rely on being able to contact the police and the ability of the police to have a car available and to arrive at the spot on time to stop a lorry to let the inspector investigate a possible fraud. The Amendment is extremely important to the inspectors and to the consumers of a very expensive commodity.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Edwin Taylor: I had not intended to take part in the debate for I was happy with the way in which the Bill was handled in Committee and with the progress which had been made. It is not part of my duty to delay the Bill which I want to go through as quickly as possible because it is a good Bill, but I cannot permit the comments of the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) to go unchallenged when she presents a sordid picture of all traders being criminals—

Mrs. Slater: I did not say that.

Mr. Taylor: —and dodging—

Mrs. Slater: On a point of order. I did not say "all traders". I was very careful to say that there were honest traders, but that there were some who were dishonest.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Slater: The hon. Member misquoted me.

Mr. Taylor: The emphasis was on dishonest traders. I did not hear the hon. Lady make the qualification.
The important question is whether we want civilians wearing civilian clothes to have authority to stop traffic. There are many reasons why they should not. It might be an excuse for a hold-up. I would not like to stop for some of the civilians who have wanted to stop me, and I would not do so even if I were a coalman.
The inspectors in Bolton are quite happy and do not want this power. They liaise with other authorities and they have their friends in neighbouring authorities and they can chase suspects right to the borders of Scotland if need be. I do not know about going into Scotland, because there is a border and one may have to have a passport to cross it, but they can certainly chase these men all over England if they want to.
I do not like the picture of tradesmen making it their first duty to be dishonest and to cheat the public. From time to time, one or two are caught being dishonest, but most tradesmen, whatever they may be—and I am a baker—are honest and work hard. It is not our intention to cheat the public. By and large, the tradesmen of this country are out to give a fair and square deal to the public. I do not want to filibuster and I am content that the Bill should go through as it is, without the Amendment.

Mr. Loughlin: I do not for a moment doubt the absolute honesty of the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor). He said that he was a baker. He is a pieman and I can tell the House that he makes some very nice pies—I have had some. On this occasion he has misconstrued our argument.
On Second Reading I referred to coal merchants and the necessity to have scales on their vehicles to weigh their coal. No one could suggest that I was attacking men who work on coal wagons, because for a number of years before I came to the House I represented coal workers as a trade union official. Just as the hon. Member for Bolton, East is jealous for the good name of traders, I am jealous for the good name of coal deliverers. It is because I am that I urge upon the Parliamentary Secretary the reasonableness of the Amendment.
We are attempting to legislate for the sake of all coal merchants and all coal deliverers and to beat the small minority who seek to defraud the general public by giving short weight. There are two ways of delivering short weight to the consumer. One is by skilfully manœuvring the number of bags which are taken down from the wagon at the time of delivery so that when the consumer says that only nine bags, for instance, have been delivered, the coalman can say that


every time a bag is emptied, the empty bag is put on the pavement and that more than nine empty bags are on the pavement. This is done by manœuvring the bags in such a way that fewer than the appropriate number are delivered, although the correct number of bags is on the pavement. The other method is to leave the coal wharf with X bags of coal on the lorry, and between that stage and the second or third delivery another man on the back of the wagon transfers some coal from a number of bags to another one to make an additional bag.

Mr. E. Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman please tell us how he obtained his knowledge? I am rather interested in this. He seems to have inside knowledge of how this is done.

Mr. Jay: May I ask the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) how he got his knowledge of the hold-up which he described just now? Has he personal experience of a serious road block caused by someone disguising himself as a weights and measures inspector?

Mr. Loughlin: I had not come to the point about the hold-up. I am annoyed with my right hon. Friend for blowing the gaff.
My reason for having knowledge of this is that as a trade union official I have been closely associated with this trade. I have had to recognise that all the members of the union were not saints. There were occasions when some of them went off the rails and were dismissed. They then came to me to make representations to their employers to have them reinstated. If I as an official did not know what fiddles were likely to go on, I could not possibly have done my job. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is my only reason for having knowledge of this. I have never been a coal deliverer.
I do not say this in any patronising or clever way, but I think there is a lesson for the Parliamentary Secretary to learn from this, because it is only through personal experience that one appreciates the difficulties with which the Government are faced in trying to formulate proposals of this kind. I agree that it is only a small minority who are dishonest. The only way to discover

whether men are making X plus Y bags out of X bags is to give inspectors the right to stop wagons and weigh the sacks while the coal is in transit from the wharves to the points of delivery.
I do not think that there is anything in this hold-up business. I do not think that an inspector would stand in the middle of the road and stop the coalman. These inspectors are pretty sensible men, and they should be given the right to weigh bags on a wagon. If we were dealing with cigarettes, it may be that people would pose as inspectors for the purpose of organising a raid on them. I know that the lads in this racket have got things down to a fine art. They have gone in for raiding bullion vans and hi-jacking wagons carrying cirgarettes and food, but I have yet to hear of them hi-jacking a wagon of coal. I cannot imagine that it would be a very profitable business.
Let us not confuse the issue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) said, there are a minority of people who are exploiting the present position to defraud the consumer. It is incumbent on the House to see that every step is taken to prevent these people exploiting the public. I pay tribute to the coal trade and to the coal deliverers as a whole, but I still think that we ought to deal with the minority who abuse the present position.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Wainwright) began his' speech by referring to two of my speeches in Standing Committee when we discussed this matter. I was not sure whether he said they were reasonable, lengthy speeches or reasonably lengthy speeches, but we discussed this matter fairly thoroughly and there is very little fresh which I can add in reply to a discussion which, I must say, without any disrespect to the House, has not thrown up any new points.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley reminded us that the power to stop vehicles carrying coal is a power which goes back to the Act of 1889 and suggested that because that Act had functioned effectively and well since then it would be a good thing to continue to have it on the Statute Book. This was the exact reverse of the argument which hon. Members opposite were deploying on the previous Amendment, when they


were suggesting that although something had apparently functioned well over the past fifty years, we ought to consider whether, with the new powers under this Bill, it should continue so to operate. We must remember that the traffic situation in 1889 was different from what it is today. In 1960, Parliament, in the Road Traffic Act—that was a consolidation Measure, the last operative Act was the 1956 Act, and I served on the Standing Committee which discussed that legislation—decided that only a policeman in uniform should be able to stop individual vehicles in a traffic stream. The number of weights and measures inspectors will be increased if this Bill becomes law and we must be careful about perpetuating a traffic problem by increasing the number of people with the right to stop individual vehicles in a traffic stream.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Jay: Is the Parliamentary Secretary suggesting that the 1960 Act repealed the previous Act of 1889 to which he has referred? Surely both Acts are running concurrently?

Mr. Freeth: I am subject to correction, but my impression is that the 1960 Act ended the right of certain people—not weights and measures inspectors—to stop traffic, and I think we should consider carefully whether this last outstanding anomaly should be permitted to continue.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley referred to the question of police cooperation. I think it is obvious that a weights and measures inspector will be well known to the police in his area—at any rate, they would be able to recognise the inspector's card—and that the police would co-operate in stopping any lorry which the inspector wished to have stopped. It is obvious also that the police in neighbouring areas would co-operate to the full if asked to do so by the police of a county borough, or vice versa.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) referred to the liaison between weights and measures authorities in different areas and the liaison between county and county borough police forces. My hon. Friend also asked whether we wanted traffic stopped by civilians. The fact that a civilian might attempt to stop traffic could be a muddling procedure

for the drivers of other, vehicles. There could be fears that on some roads hi-jacking and hold-ups might occur.

Mr. Loughlin: What, with coal wagons? Do not be so silly!

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Even involving coalmen—despite the courtesy of the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). That has been put to us by those whose livelihood might well be affected.
There is nothing to stop a vehicle being examined at the depot or at its destination, or when it is stopped while the coal is being delivered. The vast majority of coal wagons are used to deliver coal to domestic consumers and the wagon has to be stationary outside the house when a delivery is being made. A weights and measures inspector could then approach the lorry. Under the provisions of Clause 49 an offence would be committed if a coalman drove off without permitting the inspector to inspect the coal on his lorry, or without complying with a request to drive the vehicle to a weighbridge.
The hon. Member for Dearne Valley made quite a long speech about the possibility that drivers of coal vehicles would continue to proceed slowly and never actually stop if they saw the car of the local weights and measures inspector. I should have thought that such a situation would provide a classic case in which an inspector in a neighbouring area could be warned to be on the spot immediately the lorry did stop.
The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West said there were two methods of defrauding the customers which were used by vanmen delivering coal as opposed to frauds which might be perpetrated by coal merchants. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater) will read what she said in HANSARD because I have a horrible feeling that the hon. Lady went further than she intended in suggesting the degree to which there might be defrauding in the delivery of coal. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West referred to the practice of "fiddling" the number of empty coal bags left on the pavement after the coal had been shot into the coal cellar. In such a case the vehicle would


be stationary, and so the hon. Member's example was irrelevant.

Mr. Loughlin: The Parliamentary Secretary should listen to what people say, or, alternatively, try to understand what they say. I merely illustrated two main methods of defrauding a customer. I did not say that the methods were relevant to this Amendment. I said there were two main methods.

Mr. Freeth: I am sorry if I misunderstood the hon. Member. I could not think why he mentioned it if he did not think it relevant to the Amendment.
The second point was on the question of transferring to another bag. In that case one would have a complaint from a person who received a short weight bag, or, alternatively, from someone who believes he has been given short weight but is unable to substantiate it. Suspicions would be raised and a complaint or a near-complaint would be raised with the coal merchant or with the weights and measures inspector, and a watch would be kept on that particular carman in future. When he was going on his rounds and as he stopped, the local inspector would be able to catch up with him.
For those reasons, as I said in Standing Committee, it is not necessary in our opinion to give this additional power, or rather to perpetuate it, in the case of coal wagons. This Amendment, unlike the Amendments moved in Standing Committee, applies to solid fuel alone and not to the sale of sand and ballast, but in our opinion it is not necessary in modern traffic conditions to perpetuate this power. I cannot, therefore, advise the House to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: I think the Parliamentary Secretary is unreasonably obstinate on this issue. He cannot complain that some of my hon. Friends have brought forward arguments consistent with those employed in Committee. The reason is that he was unable to answer those arguments in Committee yet they appear to us—and to me —equally cogent today. There did not seem to be any substance in his argument that this House a year or two ago passed a Road Traffic Act in which it agreed that no one other than the police and weights and measures inspectors should have the power to stop vehicles on the road. That is exactly what we are

asking, that weights and measures inspectors should continue, as they have under the present law, to have this power. The hon. Gentleman proved nothing by his argument on that.
It is admitted that a certain number of frauds occur on the part of a minority —no doubt a very small minority—of traders engaged in the business of distributing coal, but even the hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor), who takes an extremely favourable view of human nature provided human nature is engaged in the retail trade, admits that a certain number of frauds occur. So I do not think any of us find ourselves in serious dispute about this.
It is not disputed that weights and measures inspectors have had this power for the last 70 years and that on numerous occasions they have used it to good effect. The Government are asking that this power should be taken away. I would have been impressed by that argument if the Minister, or anyone else, had produced any evidence that the use of this power had either caused danger on the road or any sort of abuse, or that it was being misused by weights and measures inspectors. We have had no attempt to give evidence of this in Standing Committee or in this debate.
We have had a fantastic picture put before us of what the Parliamentary Secretary described as "hi-jacking". We are asked to believe that a serious argument put forward by the Government is that there will be substantial danger if weights and measures inspectors are to continue to have the power which they have had for seventy years to stop vehicles on the road. It is suggested that there will be an outburst all over the country of serious accidents and of hold-ups by dangerous criminals disguised as weights and measures inspectors. I ask even the hon. Member for Bolton, East who takes such a favourable view of human nature but who, nevertheless, apparently believes that this kind of thing is liable to happen all over the place, to give us a single example from his personal knowledge.
We have three Ministers here from the Board of Trade and one from whom the Board of Trade has to have support on the Bill. I ask any of them whether they have any evidence that anything of this kind has occurred or is ever likely to occur. I should have thought


it clear that weights and measures inspectors will not make frivolous or foolish use of this power if we give it to them. We have had no evidence to the contrary.
It has been pointed out that there are people other than the police and weights and measures inspectors who are given power to stop traffic on the road. They are the local authority employees which hold up traffic outside schools in order that schoolchildren may cross the road safely at dangerous places.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: Mr. Denzil Freeth rose—

Mr. Jay: I know what the hon. Member is about to say. He said earlier that this was a power to stop all the traffic and not just to hold up one vehicle, but that is an argument in favour of our side of the case because obviously, a fortiori, if I may say so, one is more likely to cause a serious hold-up if one holds up all the traffic on the road than if one stops just one vehicle.

Mr. Freeth: If the right hon. Member will go outside during the rush hour and see the effect of a policeman stopping all the traffic coming down Whitehall, and then try to imagine what would happen if he stopped only one vehicle in the middle of Whitehall, he will see that we are right.

Mr. Jay: I do not agree with that at all. I do not think that this is the main issue between us. It is obvious that if a policeman in the rush hour or any other hour holds up all the traffic, the interference with the flow of traffic will be greater than if he holds up a single vehicle and allows all the rest to continue.
We therefore come to this stage in this rather remarkable argument—that the Parliamentary Secretary admits that these frauds occur, that he wants to take away this power and that he says that the solution is to send for the police. But he admitted earlier that it is not an easy matter for a weights and measures inspector to get hold of the police; they may not be there at the time. Even if they are telephoned, the weights and measures inspector has to make out a case. He has to have a discussion with the policeman, to argue the matter and to convince him that he has a valid case for help. I do not know where the fraudulent trader will he by that time.
The hon. Member for Bolton, East painted a picture of these vehicles dashing all over the country, for example escaping to Gretna Green and taking refuge in Scotland. This, too, was a somewhat imaginative picture, but it is more likely to happen if we let it be known to the minority of fraudulent persons that as long as they are an the move they are all right. And that is the effect of what the Government now wish to introduce into our legislation.
I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has treated this in a rather frivolous manner. He has produced purely imaginary reasons against our Amendment and he has been totally unconvincing. The weight of argument is surely in favour of leaving the law as it is at present and allowing the inspectors to continue to use this power which has been useful in the past.

Mr. William Wells: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary a short question? I understood that the gist of his argument at one stage was that we need not worry about the power to stop a vehicle when appropriate because the police would always co-operate. I understand that a policeman has power to stop traffic for purposes of traffic control and also has power to stop a vehicle when he is informed or has reason to suppose that there is a suspected offence. But what authority has a police officer to stop a vehicle merely for the purpose of inspecting it? What the Government are doing in the Amendment is to withdraw a power of inspection which has existed for over 70 years.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Milne: I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary for Science with considerable interest. His arguments against the Amendment could be used as arguments against the whole Clause. The Title of the Clause is General powers of inspection and entry". If, to carry out the functions of the Bill, it is necessary to have powers of inspection and entry, obviously these powers should extend to the various selling points in the retail distributive trade and, as is sought in the Amendment, the sale of coal from vehicles.
It has been argued that if this power is granted there will be a danger of hi-jacking. I followed the speech of the


hon. Member for Bolton, East (Mr. E. Taylor) very closely, although I do not know the definition of "hi-jacking". We may hear the definition from him later. This argument could be used against the other parts of the Clause. If persons are to use the powers sought in the Amendment for illegal purposes, they could equally be used for illegal entry in connection with the other types of inspection. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) in Committee quoted the recommendations of the Hodgson Committee on this subject. These is no need to go back to the nineteenth century.
Paragraph 424 of the Hodgson Report says this:
…in various sections of our Report we have recommended that inspectors should be empowered, or should continue to be empowered, to stop vehicles for the purpose of making test weighings or measurements and of checking documents. This power should be interpreted as relating to any vehicle travelling on any street or highway to which the public has access: and we recommend that all local authorities should provide their inspectors with traffic signs suitable for this purpose and authorised under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930.
The question of waiting until delivery has stopped is not a strong argument. Any vehicle under observation could be kept moving until the patience of the inspector was exhausted. There are a sufficient number of places for inspection to be carried out without there being any danger to traffic. The police have powers to stop vehicles in Whitehall and other places, no matter what the flow of traffic is. The Parliamentary Secretary for Science should think very carefully about this and look closely indeed at the Amendment.

Mr. Winterbottom: I am one of the few persons in the House, if not the only person, who has had to deal with this

problem. There was a time in my duties in the distributive trades when I had to exercise oversight over coal delivery. One of our difficulties was that there were more bags on the lorries going out than there were bags filled with coal. The places where exchanges took place were well known geographically. That is why this Measure, if it becomes an Act, will be inadequate to check the abuses which occur in the distribution of coal. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Amendment, not for the sake of those who carry the bags of coal, but for the sake of those who do the checking. These persons, after checking the lorry and the number of bags of coal on it, after having had the coal put on scales, or after having had the lorry put on a weighbridge and deducted the tare from the gross weight as shown on the weighbridge, still find sometimes that there are more bags of coal half a mile from the depot than there were when the lorry started. This is important for the consumer. I have yet to meet a consumer who has a pair of scales in his garden or back yard on which to weigh the coal delivered to him. Until he is able to weigh it he is unable to trap the coalman.

Believe it or not, when one has ordered ten bags of coal one must watch, when the coal is delivered, to make sure that ten bags arrive. Sometimes, even after one has counted them, one may have received only nine. [Laughter.] Somehow, somewhere one bag has gone, and I believe that the Amendment would prevent that sort of thing from happening. To make the industry and the men who work in it more honest, I urge the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the Amendment.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 185.

Division No. 75.]
AYES
[8.52 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Brockway, A. Fenner
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Ainsley, William
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Dempsey, James


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Diamond, John


Bacon, Mlss Alice
Carmichael, Nell
Dodds, Norman


Baxter, William (Stirlingshire, W.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Ede, Rt. Hon. C.


Bancs, Cyril
Cllffe, Michael
Edward, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)


Bennett, J. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Coillck, Percy
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)


Blackburn, F.
Cronin, John
Fernyhougn, E.


Blyton, William
Crosland, Anthony
Fletcher, Eric


Boarthnan, H.
Culler), Mrs. Alice
Form an, J. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Daly ell, Tarn
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Bowden, Rt. Hn. H. W. (Lelca. S.W.)
Darling, George
Gtrtsburg, David


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davlee, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Davles, Harold (Leek)
Gourlay, Harry




Grey, Charles
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Skeffington, Arthur


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Manuel, Archie
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mapp, Charles
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleld)


Gunter, Ray
Milne, Edward
Small, William


Hannan, William
Mitchison, G. R.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Harper, Joseph
Moody, A. S.
Spriggs, Leslie


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mulley, Frederick
Steele, Thomas


Hayman, F. H.
Neal, Harold
Stonehouse, John


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (Rwly Regie)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Swain, Thomas


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Noel Baker, Rt. Hn. Philip (Dorby,S.)
Taverne, D.


Hilton, A. V.
Oliver, G. H.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Holman, Percy
Oram, A, E,
Thomas, lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Houghton, Douglas
Oswald, Thomas
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hoy, James H.
Padley, W. E.
Thornton, Ernest


Hughes, Cledwvn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wade, Donald


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pargiter, G. A.
Walnwrlght, Edwin


Hunter, A. E.
Parker, John
Warbey, William


Hynd, John (Attercllffe)
Parkin, B. T.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence
Whitlock, William


Jay, Rt. Hon Douglas
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jeger, George
Peart, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pentland, Norman
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, T. W. (Merloneth)
Price, J. T, (Westhoughton)
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Kelley, Richard
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Winterbottom, R. E.


King, Dr. Horace
Rankin, John
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Lawson, George
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Woof, Robert


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Robertson, John (Paisley)
Wyatt, Woodrow


Loughlin, Charles
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rodgere, W. T. (Stockton)



MacColl, James
Rose, William
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacDermot, Niall
Short, Edward
Mr. Charles A. Howell and


Mclnnes, James
Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Mr. Redhead.


NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Allason, James
Farr, John
Litchfield, Capt. John


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Finlay, Graeme
Longbottom, Charles


Awdry, Daniel (Chippenham)
Fisher, Nigel
Longden, Gilbert


Bainiel, Lord
Forrest, George
Loveys, Walter H.


Bartow, Sir John
Freeth, Derail
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Batstord, Brian
Galbralth, Hon. T. G. D.
McAdden, Sir Stephen


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Gllmour, Sir John (East Fife)
McLaren, Martin


Bell, Ronald
Goodhew, Victor
McMaster, Stanley H.


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Gower, Raymond
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)


Bidgood, John C.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maddan, Martin


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Magtnnie, John E.


Bishop, F. P.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Bourne-Arton, A.
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marshall, Douglas



Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Mawby, Ray


Box, Donald
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Boyle, fit. Hon. Sir Edward
Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hay, John
Mills, Stratton


Buck, Antony
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Miscampbell, Norman


Bullard, Denys
Hiley, Joseph
Montgomery, Fergus


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Morgan, William


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Oakshott, Sir Henrtrle


Cary, Sir Robert
Hobson, Sir John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Chataway, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hollingworth, John
Page, John (Harrow, West)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hopkins, Alan
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Clarke, Brig, Terence (Portemth, W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Partridge, E.


Cole, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon, Dame P.
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cooke, Robert
Hughes-Young, Michael
Peel, John


Cordcaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Porclval, Ian


Corfie-ld, F. V.
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Plckthorn, Sir Xenneth


Coulson, Michael
James, David
Pitkington, Sir Richard


Craddock, Sir Bereaford (Spelthorne)
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwleh)
Pott, Pereivall


Crawley, Aldan
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Powell, Rt. Hon, J, Enoch


Crltchley, Julian
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)



Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. Sir Oliver
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Crowder, F. P.
Kerarts, Cdr. J. S.
Prior, J. M. L.


Cunningham, Knox
Kershaw, Anthony
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


Curran, Charles
Kimball, Marcus
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Dalkeith, Earl of
Kirk, Peter
Pym, Francis


Deedea, Rt. Hon. W. F.
Kltson, Timothy
Ramsden, James


de Ferranti, Basil
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Rawlinson, Sir Peter


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Leather, Sir Edwin
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin


Drayson, G. B.
Leavey, J. A.
Rees, Hugh


Eden, John
Leburn, Gilmour
Renton, Rt. Hon, David


Elliott,R.W.(Nwcastle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
RldBdale, Julian


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Errotl, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Lilley, F. J. P.
Scott-Hopkins, James







Seymour, Leslie
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Shepherd, William
Taylor, Frank (M'ch'st'r, Moss Side)
Ward, Dame Irene


Skeet, T. H. H.
Teeling, Sir William
Webster, David


Smith, Dudley (Br'ntf'd &amp; Chlswick)
Temple, John M.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Smithers, Peter
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Smyth, Rt. Hon. Brig. Sir John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Speir, Robert
Touche, Rt. Hon. Sir Gordon
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stevens, Geoffrey
Turner, Colin
Woodhouse, C. M.


Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady
Worsley, Marcus


Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
van Slraubenzee, W. R.



Storey, Sir Samuel
Vane, W. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Studholme, Sir Henry
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Mr. Ian Fraser and


Summers, Sir Spencer
Walder, David
Mr. Mac Arthur.


Tapsell, Peter
Walker, Peter

Clause 53.—(DETERMINATION OF CERTAIN QUESTIONS BY BOARD.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move, in page 51, line 25, to leave out "or efficiency".

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston): I think that it will be convenient to take with this Amendment the next following Amendment, in line 28.

Mr. Price: Yes, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
These two Amendments taken together are intended to meet a point raised in Committee by the hon. and learned Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). The present subsection provides that, if in any proceedings under the Bill any question arises on the accuracy or efficiency of weighing or measuring equipment, the court may refer this to the Board of Trade whose decision should be final. The provisions of the subsection are based on the present law which has been running since 1904 and has caused no difficulty.
However, the hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that it might not always be desirable for the Board's decision to be final since this would make it binding on the court even if, for instance, it were found to contain some inaccuracy or procedural fault. I promised to look into it.
The effect of the Amendment is that, by deleting the reference to "efficiency", the hon. and learned Gentleman's point is met since the matter which could be referred for determination by the Board would be limited to the objective question of the accuracy of the equipment in question. Whether or not it was efficient equipment would, if the Amendment were accepted, not be a matter for the Board's determination but for the court to decide.
I hope that the Amendment goes a considerable way to meet the point

which the hon. and learned Gentleman raised, and I ask the House to accept it

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I am grateful for the manner in which this question has been approached. I think that the Amendment improves the Bill in a not unimportant respect. It marks a change for the better, and I am much obliged for the way in which our proposal has been treated.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 51, line 28, leave out from "question" to end of line.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Clause 54.—(REGULATIONS AND ORDERS.)

Amendment made: In page 51, line 42, after"23 (4) "insert" 33 (3)".—[Mr. D. Price.]

Clause 61.—(TRANSITIONAL SAVING FOR EFFECT OF CERTAIN ORDERS AS TO MILK OR BREAD.)

Mr. John H. Osborn: I beg to move, in page 57, line 15, after "1964" to insert:
and to extend the use of one-third of a pint containers".
I draw the attention of the House to a misprint in the names against this Amendment and the next following Amendment in line 36. It is the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) which should appear there, not that of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells). My hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone apologises for not being here to move the Amendment himself. He has to be out of the House at this time, and I am acting in his stead.
In Standing Committee, we had a long debate about milk vending machines. It is not necessary to remind the House that the total number of machines involved


is about 6,000. They cost, roughly, £365 apiece, and to alter each machine would cost probably £25 apiece. The total capital outlay involved exceeds £2 million. We had hoped that it would be possible still to buy milk by inserting 6d. in the slot machine, but our Amendment in Committee was not accepted by the Parliamentary Secretary.
There is a practical problem here. These machines exist, and, immediately after the Bill becomes an Act, certain action must be taken in order that milk is packaged in sufficiently small quantities so that it can be sold by inserting 6d. in the slot. We should bear in mind that it is impracticable or difficult to modify some of these machines and to incorporate the multi-coin mechanism which is practicable when new machines are being built.
All that we ask is that within a few months of the Bill becoming law it should be possible to sell milk in one-third pint containers in milk vending machines which are now in operation. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will give the proposals of the milk industry his careful consideration and will accept the Amendments.

Mr. D. Price: The effect of the Amendments would be to allow the sale through vending machines of milk in one-third pint containers six months after the enactment of the Bill. The present law, which is to apply until the coming into force of the Fourth Schedule two years after the passing of the Bill, requires milk other than school milk to be made up for retail sale in half-pints and pints only.
The Amendments are unacceptable as they stand. When we discussed the problems of milk vending machines in Committee, I pointed out that there would be serious difficulties of enforcement if we attempted to distinguish between milk made up for sale in vending machines and mill made up for sale over the counter. For example, an inspector, on finding stocks of one-third pint containers in a retail dairy, might suspect that they were being sold over the counter, but it would be hard to disprove the shopkeeper's assertion that they were used only to fill his vending machine.
However, if it is the general wish of the House to allow the earlier introduction of the one-third pint as a permitted quantity for all retail sales, with there being no distinction between milk sold from a vending machine and milk sold over the counter or delivered to houses, I am prepared to consider the wish favourably with a view to ensuring that a suitable Amendment is moved in another place. This would allow one-third pints of milk, provided they were marked with their capacity, to be sold through all retail outlets, including sale through vending machines, six months after the Bill comes into force. The question is whether it is the general wish of the House to advance the time when one-third pints of milk can be sold legally.
As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) said earlier today, we want, as far as possible, to keep party politics out of this matter. I am in the hands of hon. Members. If it is their view that it would be desirable to advance from two years to six months the legalising of one-third pints, then I should be happy when the Bill goes to another place to ensure that the Government move a suitable Amendment.

Mr. Winterbottom: I appreciate all that the Parliamentary Secretary has said. The need of some old-age pensioners living alone for one-third of a pint of milk has been stressed an innumerable occasions.
There is one difficulty which I want the Parliamentary Secretary to take into consideration. It concerns the price of milk. Milkmen are like grocers. If milk is 8d. a pint and we divide that by three, then someone over the course of time will get some profit which he did not expect. Grocers reckon in a different way from economists in universities. They say that 6 and 6 make 12, and another 6 makes it 18, and 18 pence is 1s. 8d. We do not want that to apply in terms of milk. There is this problem of the division of the price of milk. It is simplified in half-pint terms, but it will be much more difficult with regard to one-third pints. So, while I have great sympathy with the proposals in the Amendments, I put it to the Parliamentary Secretary that there is this problem of price that has to be faced.

Mrs. Eveline Hill: This seems to me to be not an unreasonable request. If it costs a fraction more to provide milk in one-third pints, it will cost slightly more to pack it in one-third pints, and for that reason one can well understand there being a slight addition to the cost. If it is merely a question of time when this is to become operative, surely the best and simplest way of dealing with it is to bring it into operation in the shortest time and give people the benefit of these machines and old people the benefit of being able to buy small quantities of milk.

Mr. Darling: We are in something of a difficulty in that these are starred Amendments and we have not had time to examine their consequences.
I can see the point that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn) has raised in regard to time. If we agree to the sale of one-third pints of milk, not only in vending machines, but generally, then the time factor is not an important matter of principle—it is a practical proposition. Hon. Members will be aware that in Committee some of my hon. Friends and I opposed the idea altogether of milk being sold in one-third pint containers. This was for the very good reason which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom) put up, but did so the wrong way round.
I do not want to see milk supplies to old-age pensioners cut down merely because they cannot afford to pay for half-pints of milk. If old-age pensioners are to be in trouble, we should raise old-age pensions and not cut down the amount of milk that they can buy I cannot accept that argument.
I think that there is still a case for looking very closely at the proposition that milk should be sold in one-third pint containers. We lost that battle in Committee, and I do not think that it would be appropriate to go over it again. If we are still to lose that battle there is perhaps a good case on practical grounds for introducing the provision which the hon. Member for Hallam has asked for within six months instead of waiting two years. We are, however, in the difficulty that we have not had a chance properly to consider this.
Therefore, the best way out of the difficulty would be to allow the matter to be discussed fully again in all its aspects in another place. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will not arrange for the Amendment in another place to be put down in such a way as to limit discussion. I am sure that that will not be his intention. In the circumstances, it is probably desirable to accept the Parliamentary Secretary's offer. I certainly oppose acceptance of the two Amendments tonight because we simply have not had a chance to consider them.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Goodhew: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. J. H. Osborn). It should be made clear that there is no suggestion from this side of the House of encouraging old-age pensioners to have their milk only in one-third of a pint, because they will still be able to buy it in half-pints or pints if they wish. Hon. Members opposite have raised a stupid red herring in making that absurd suggestion. I support the Amendment because it seems to me to be perfectly sensible and I cannot see that any real objection has been raised during the debate.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: I thank not only my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) for supporting the Amendment, but my fellow citizens, the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) and the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Winterbottom), for their constructive contribution to the discussion of the Amendments. I would not describe them as starred Amendments. One of the difficulties has been to find a way of helping the milk distributive trade to solve its problems. I welcome the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary that an Amendment should be put forward by the Government for consideration and full debate in another place. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4.—(F000s.)

Amendment made: In page 68, line 38, leave out from "goods" to end of line 39.—[Mr. D. Price.]

Mr. Speaker: The next Amendment is in page 72, line 17.

Mr. Darling: On a point of order. I do not want to challenge your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, or make any suggestion that would involve asking why our Amendment has not been selected in page 72, line 12, at end insert:
3. Except when sold as a constituent of a mixture of two or more liquids beer shall be sold by retail only—

(a) if prepacked, in a container marked with an indication of the original gravity of the contents; or
(b) if not prepacked and sold for consumption on the promises at which it is sold, if there is displayed on those premises, in such a position and manner as to he readily available without special request by the buyer before sale, a statement in writing showing the original gravity thereof.
Original gravity" has the same meaning for the purpose of this Act as it has for the purposes of the Customs and Excise Act 1952.
I wonder, however, whether I might make a submission so that if the matter is raised in another place it could be suggested that the general reason for not discussing this kind of matter in the Bill is that the Bill dealt with weights and not qualities, although we could argue that the Amendment deals with weights and not qualities. Beer, which is the subject of the Amendment, consists of, we hope, pure water to begin with, to which is added malt, hops and sugar—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No doubt, if an Amendment were offered in another place, the authorities there would have to consider whether it was within order as being within the scope of the Bill. I quite understand that some problems of quantity may be rightly related to quality, in the sense that when considering medicine it is possible to measure all the ingredients which it contains, but that would be a poor test for the fragrance of flowers or the bouquet of a wine. The Amendment is out of order.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I beg to move, in page 72, line 17, after "quantities" insert:
which shall be the same for all those liquors".
Perhaps we might discuss at the same time, Mr. Speaker, the consequential Amendment in line 22, leave out from second "in" to "offered" in line 24, and insert:
which of those quantities those liquors are

Mr. Speaker: If the House so agrees.

Mr. Freeth: These two Amendments deal with a point raised in Standing Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport, South (Mr. H. Steward), who referred at column 661 to the fact that paragraph 242 of the Hodgson Report suggested that there should be one measure only for spirits, but the Bill appears to permit a publican to serve gin in one-fifth of a gill, whisky in one-fourth of a gill and vodka in one-sixth of a gill.
My hon. Friend suggested that this might lead to confusion at best on Saturday nights and to fraud at worst. I agreed to consider the point, and my hon. Friend and I have now done so. We accept that to allow different measures for different spirits on the same premises, as the Bill at present allows, might well cause confusion and mistakes and even fraud. Therefore, we suggest these Amendments to the House which would have the effect of ensuring that there would be the same measure for each of the spirits in any one licensed premises.
I would say in passing that we looked at the possibility of permitting the publican to use a different measure for all spirits, provided that the same measure was used for all spirits in one bar, and that the different bars within the same public house had the choice of using different measures. I think that on reflection hon. Members will see that this was not a happy halfway house. Therefore. I commend these Amendments to the House.

Mr. Darling: The reason why the Parliamentary Secretary is in trouble over the business of having too many measures for spirits in the same public house is that we have too many measures for spirits throughout the country. I would have preferred the Parliamentary Secretary to accept the proposition which we have put forward, which is far more logical and sensible, of having one measure for spirits throughout the United Kingdom. Whether it should be a quarter of a gill or a fifth of a gill is a matter for discussion, but it certainly ought not to be one-sixth of a gill in Southern England.
I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking this course of dealing with a very real problem, because the best solution is, as I said, to have one


measure for spirits throughout the country. At any rate, he has come some way to get rid of a difficulty which has arisen because of the stupid way this part of the Bill is worded.

Mr. Harold Steward: I intervene only to thank my hon. Friend for the half loaf that he has offered us. It is, at all events, part of what we asked for. It is perfectly true that this was within the context of a broader submission which was made. While I still feel that it would have been better, as has been said, to have a standard measure for the whole country, I nevertheless express my gratitude for this half loaf.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 72, line 22, leave out from second "in" to "offered" in line 24 and insert:
which of those quantities those liquors are". —[Mr. Denzil Freeth.]

Mr. Goodhew: I beg to move, in page 72, line 30, after "it" to insert "either".

Mr. Speaker: I believe that it would be for a convenience of the House to discuss with this Amendment the next one in the name of the hon. Gentleman, in page 72, line 31, leave out "three or more liquids" and insert:
two or more alcoholic liquids other than bitters",
and perhaps also the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, in line 31, after "liquids" to insert:
or,the buyer expressly demands a mixture containing a different quantity",
which is not selected, but I should be prepared, if it were desired, to permit discussion to extend over it also.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In order that we may be clear, as I am afraid I am not at the moment, do I understand that you are calling the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) has moved and only his first Amendment to line 31 and that it would not be possible, should the Government so desire, to accept his second Amendment to line 31?

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry if I did not state the proposition aright. I

took it that the first two Amendments clearly went together, and if I was wrong about that I will select them severally for the purpose of whatever course is desired.

Mr. Goodhew: I am grateful, Mr. Speaker. I think I am right in saying that the third Amendment follows the first and that the second is an alternative to the other two. They dwell on the same subject. I should tell the House that I have an interest in establishments which sell gin, cocktails and other drinks and that I am glad to number hon. Members among my customers.
The Government have tried to frame this Bill so as to enable people to have the drink to which they are accustomed —that is to say, to be able to buy if they wish a cocktail without having to have a full measure of gin in it. As the House will realise, if one has a mixture of three or more liquids it makes it a very large drink instead of perhaps the small aperitif which is desired.
For instance, there is the difficulty of the person who does not wish to have a cocktail mixed with ice, and therefore, as we discovered in Standing Committee, may want to include water as a constituent part. Then there is the person who wants a gin and French or a gin and Dubonnet consisting principally of French or Dubonnet. I am sure there are hon. Gentlemen who have taken members of the fair sex out to dine who have asked for a gin and Dubonnet and have said "Only a little gin".

Mr. Loughlin: indicated dissent.

Mr. Goodhew: The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) either gives the fair sex all the gin they can take or does not take them out at all.
This is important from the point of view of being able to supply people with what they want. Someone told me at lunch today that whenever they had a gin and Italian they liked two-thirds Italian and one-third gin. A full measure of gin in this drink would make it enormous.
In view of the need to enable restaurateurs and bar keepers to supply the public with what they want, I hope that


my hon. Friend will be able to accept either the first and third of these Amendments together or the second one, for this would enable the public to buy a mixture of two drinks without having to have a full measure of gin. It would not prevent someone from having a complete measure of gin in a gin and tonic or a complete measure of whisky in a whisky and soda, but it would enable those who want two alcoholic liquors in a drink to have a smaller drink than would otherwise be the case.

Mr. Robert Cooke: I support this Amendment, although I come from a city more closely associated not with teetotallers but with those who drink sherry and wine and other unadulterated things. But I know from my limited experience of places of public entertainment and public drinking that a grave injustice would be done if we passed this Bill without making this Amendment. People who like messy things like cocktails should be allowed to enjoy them in peace.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: We had quite a discussion in Standing Committee on the subject of those who wish to purchase a mixture of two liquids but do not wish to have a full measure of one of the four spirits mentioned in Part VI of the Fourth Schedule. Looking back at what I said then, I think that I was a little harsh to the young lady who likes to drink a Dubonnet with a dash of gin and also perhaps, to the young lady who likes to drink her Italian or French with just a dash of gin—a dash, I presume, being very much smaller even than a sixth of a gill. The case equally applies, of course, to vodka.
9.30 p.m.
There is the difficulty of enforcement if I were to meet my hon. Friends' case. The House must face the difficulty before making up its mind about the Amendment. The question is whether, if one so stipulates, a buyer of a drink demanding expressly to have only a dash of gin, instead of a legal measure of gin, thereby offers a loophole to the unscrupulous seller to evade the specified quantity requirements of the Schedule. The fact that the seller could give less than the full measure when less than the full measure was expressly demanded could open the door to abuse. For example, the barman might persuade his customer

to order a "special" mixed drink which contained less than the full mixture of spirit and which was not a cocktail within the meaning of the wording of the Schedule, which states that it must be a mixture of three or more liquids.
It is possible to suggest that this might happen and not easily be detectable or provable by the inspector. On the other hand, I am conscious of the fact that the aim of the Bill is to benefit both the consumer and the trader and to provide the consumer with that maximum amount of freedom which the consumer should have, together with the maximum amount of protection which the consumer should have. It is possibly rather harsh to demand that the consumer, or rather the purchaser, who in many cases is not the consumer, should have to buy more gin than he wishes to pay for, or than the consumer wishes to consume.
Therefore, if the sense of the House is that this is a reasonable Amendment, namely, that a person who expressly says that he wishes to have one liquid with only a dash of gin in it and not a full measure of gin, should be able to do so, I would certainly not wish to stand in its way in accepting the Amendment and the consequential Amendment. Upon reflection, I think that it is possible to make too much of the dangers of confusion or fraud and that the situation which we would like to see is that outlined by my hon. Friend.
Unfortunately, however, the actual wording of my hon. Friend's Amendment is not acceptable as it stands, and it would certainly be necessary to make a consequential change to paragraph 3 (b) about the notice in the pub or hotel, informing the customer which measure is being used for the spirits in question. But if it is the "spirit" of the House that we should move forward along the lines suggested by my hon. Friend, I will see that an Amendment is moved in another place.

Mr. Darling: There are two reasons why I personally—and I speak only for myself—welcome this approach. The first is on the ground of sobriety. The Amendment is desirable because if a person asking for a Martini had to get the full strength of gin we would have far more people laid out in an unsober state than we have now.
On enforcement I should say that as a general rule the pub which practises fraud in the measures and which is caught, if the inspector catches it, is likely to be the pub which would practise fraud in this kind of proposition. I would have thought that in this kind of business the legal protection was all that was required for enforcement. I am glad that the Parliamentary Secretary is taking this line.

Mr. Colin Turner: I support the principle of these Amendments. It is not only the young lady referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) who may require a dash of gin. The connoisseur of cocktails is particular about the quantities that go into his cocktail, and I am certain that if he does not get what he requires he is capable of protecting his interests and seeing that the cocktail is to the quantity and consistency he wants. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the principle of these Amendments.

Mr. Goodhew: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having accepted the aim of the Amendment, and for the reception it has had from the House. In view of my hon. Friend's undertaking to introduce his own Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw mine.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I am not sure whether covering the ground is the right expression, but to ensure that I do not get these matters confused I propose to select the other two Amendments and see what happens. Does the hon. Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew) desire to move the Amendments in page 72, line 31?

Mr. Goodhew: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member.

Mr. Cyril Bence: I beg to move, in page 72, line 38, to leave out "five" and to insert "three".
Having listened to the discussion on the previous Amendment, I, too, have an interest to declare. I move this Amendment with some trepidation, because all

my life I have been a member of a temperance movement, and I still am an active temperance advocate.
All this talk about mixing drinks is a foreign language to me. Nevertheless, I suppose that hon. Gentlemen opposite enjoy the pleasure of these dashes and bitters, or whatever they are called. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that these miniatures of pre-packed liquids, these things about which we have been talking, are clearly marked if they contain four fluid ounces or five fluid ounces.
There is no difficulty about pre-packing three ounces in a miniature bottle, and I see no reason why a bottle containing this quantity should be marked, but I do not think that bottles containing four and five fluid ounces should be exempt from this provision. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept this Amendment which deals with a matter about which I know very little, but I think that five ounces is too large a quantity to exempt.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I also have an interest to declare, although, as those hon. Members who served on the Committee which considered the Licensing Bill will know, it is slightly different from that of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence). I admit to being connected with the brewing industry. I apologise to the House for not having served on this exciting Committee about which we have heard tonight, but 60 hours on the earlier occasion required more than a miniature to sustain me before I could serve on this Committee.
I gather that the Minister was under some slight obligation, as a result of the deliberations in Committee, to meet views which are not very dissimilar from those expressed by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. I am not going to make a great case about this, because I believe that this is not so much a case of exact but rather maximum and minimum quantities, but I am sure my hon. Friend will realise that this is a rather unusual trade. All sorts of peculiar little fancy bottles are used for the purpose and I doubt whether any manufacturer would maintain that he could produce two bottles which would contain the same amount of liquor.
One accepts the fact that the strict measurements usually applied to the


amount of liquid contained in a bottle cannot be applied to these kinds of bottles. The hon. Member is anxious to set a limit on what would, presumably, be an undesirable practice. I do not think that such a practice is extensive because, on the whole, the trade is pretty honest in this matter, as it is over licensing matters generally. I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that this is not a case where the liquid contained in the bottles may be measured drop by drop, and it would be impracticable to use machinery. Generally, I do not think that there would be any objection to the Amendment although I know that some people have fears about the matter.

Mr. Denzil Freeth: During the Committee stage discussions we debated whether five fluid ounces was the right limit above which it would be necessary for the contents of a bottle to be in a marked and accurately sized container. The Committee accepted the proposition that it was impossible to measure the contents of a miniature bottle accurately. But five fluid ounces is very near the size of the smallest bottle of whisky which it is possible to buy—the quarter bottle. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) was concerned that some people might make a miniature container holding four or four-and-three-quarter fluid ounces, composed of very thick glass, which would appear to be the same size as a quarter bottle of spirits. The hon. Gentleman considered—I think rightly—that this would be an undesirable practice which should not be countenanced.
I am advised that no miniature bottles are made which contain between three and five fluid ounces. Because of that, and in order to avoid the possibility of fraud to which the hon. Member for Hillsborough referred, I gave an undertaking during the Committee stage that if the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) put down an Amendment to substitute three fluid ounces for five the Government would look with favour upon it. The hon. Gentleman has so done, the Government so do and I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Bence: Speaking as a temperance advocate, I hope that I may be permitted to express my thanks to the Parliamentary Secretary for enabling me to enjoy

what I think must be a unique experience for a teetotaller, in being able to move such an Amendment as this and to get it accepted by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move, in page 73, line 25, at the end to insert:
(bb) mushrooms.

Mr. Speaker: I imagine that it would be convenient also to consider with this Amendment the Amendment in page 78, line 22, to leave out "(including mushrooms)".

Mr. Price: Would it be convenient also, Mr. Speaker, to discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 73, line 42, after "fruits" insert "or mushrooms".

Mr. Speaker: If the House so pleases.

Mr. Price: These Amendments are intended to achieve the purpose of an Amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mrs. Slater). Hon. Members who supported her believed that mushrooms should be included among the products covered by this paragraph and that they should fall under paragraph 3 (1, a). They would thus have been required to be sold by net weight or by gross weight if their containers weighed not more than the levels allowed by Table B of Part XII of the Schedule.
I agreed with hon. Members that there was no reason why mushrooms should not be included, but I pointed out that when pre-packed they are generally sold in punnets which weigh more than the Table B container allowances. I said that if pre-packed mushrooms were to be included in Part VII of the Fourth Schedule it would be necessary to have a container allowance which would cover the punnets—namely the Table C allowance which applies to goods in subparagraph (1, b). I told hon. Members that we would put down an Amendment to enable mushrooms to be covered by Table C. That is the effect of these three Amendments. The first creates a new sub-paragraph for mushrooms, since it would hardly be botanically correct to include them among "soft fruits" in subparagraph (1, b). The second provides that the Table C allowances shall apply to mushrooms as well as to soft fruits.


The third is consequential on the first two. It ends the present exemption for mushrooms in paragraph (3) of Part XI from the general marking arrangements for pre-packed goods imposed by Part XI. This is no longer necessary as mushrooms will now be covered by Part VII, and not by Part XI of the Fourth Schedule. I hope that with that explanation the House will see fit to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Loughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give some guidance on this? I understand that "mushroom" is an edible fungus, but I cannot find "mushroom" defined in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will know that the variety of edible fungi is quite large. I do not want to go deeply into this matter because I am a townee, but there is a very good book in the Library in which the author, who is an expert on mushrooms, defies anyone to say what a mushroom is. Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell me if he is to define mushroom at a later stage or if he can say what it means in view of the fact that it is an all-embracing term covering edible fungi?

Mr. Price: There are many terms in the Bill which are not explicitly defined. In want of definition, one takes the common trade parlance.

Mr. Bence: Oh.

Mr. Price: The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence) may say "Oh", but we would have to provide a vast definition for blackberries, black currants and so on, if we tried to define everything precisely.
I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), because I know there is a wide range of edible fungi, but they are not normally sold in the shops in this country. My private inquiries—which have nothing to do with official inquiries —tell me that in fact most retailers today sell cultivated mushrooms rather than field mushrooms, because of the risk with field mushrooms of being caught under the Food and Drugs Act due to parasites and so on being in them. This apparently is an occupational hazard when trying to sell field or wood mushrooms.
I am not aware of any edible fungi, in so far as that may be considered a generic term, other than mushrooms being

sold normally by retail trade, although no doubt the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West—like myself—fancies his skill in picking up an edible toadstool and risking a by-election by eating it. I assure the House that my inquiries tell me that what is normally called a mushroom in trade parlance is a cultivated one and that is what the term covers. If it should become the practice in this country to sell commercially what in France is called cèpe, then it might be necessary to make a change, but we have powers under order to do this. At the moment the practice is to sell only mushrooms.

Mr. Loughlin: There is developing a Continental trade in cèpe, which is a mushroom, and so is a puffball a mushroom. This provision has to cover any development of the trade. It may well be that this Continental development will spread to this country.

Mr. Charles A. Howell: Will the Minister have further consultations on the question of mushrooms before the Bill goes to another place. Most of the mushrooms on sale are cultivated in a big business, but if one goes back to the field mushrooms one finds that they are basically seasonal. There is a form of mushroom called Morrelle, or called Blue Nose in rural areas. These are still sold in the season straight from the field. Morrelles are nothing like mushrooms either in colour or in taste. Would they be outside the scope of this provision? If they would, perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will consult people in horticulture to see whether the words "mushrooms or Morrelles" should be included.

Mr. D. Price: I think that the word "mushroom" covers it all but in view of the interest which hon. Members have shown in the more unusual type of edible fungi, I will ensure that the term "mushroom" covers them all. Should it not do so, no doubt it would be proper in another place to change the word "mushroom" to "edible fungi". For the moment I ask the House to be content with the Amendment. I gave an undertaking in Standing Committee that mushrooms, including edible fungi, would be included in the Bill. I will make sure that "mushrooms" covers trade in cèpe, and in the meantime I hope that the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Member mean that the word "mushroom", which he is putting in the Bill, covers all the other edible fungi, including what he calls an edible toadstool?

Mr. Price: They are the same thing.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 73, line 42, after "fruits" insert "or mushrooms".

In page 74, line 23, at end insert:
4A. Subsection (3) of section 33 of this Act shall apply to any requirement of paragraph 3 or 4 of this Part of this Schedule with respect to the making known to the buyer of the quantity by gross weight of pre-packed goods to which that paragraph applies in like manner as if provision to that effect had been made by an order under that subsection, but the power of The Board to vary or revoke any order under that subsection shall extend to the amendment or repeal of this paragraph.

In page 78, line 22 leave out "(including mushrooms)".—[Mr. D. Price.]

Mr. Bence: I beg to move, in page 78, line 38, to leave out "five" and insert "three".
This Amendment is not connected with mushrooms. It is connected with soft drinks. As it is getting late, I will content myself with moving it formally.

Mr. D. Price: The Amendment, which appears very similar to a previous Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence), relates to the exemption from the Part XI marking requirement for small containers of soft drink under five fluid oz.—that is, about ¼ pint. The Amendment would reduce the exemption limit to three fluid oz.
If the Amendment were accepted, the bulk of what I believe are termed "baby" sized bottles of mineral waters, which contain about 4 fluid oz., would have to be marked with the quantity of their contents. This would be difficult in practice, and particularly so for carbonated drinks. There are great difficulties in filling small bottles with a precise amount of carbonated liquid and the difficulties are increased by the variation in capacity which, as we discussed on an earlier Amendment, is inevitable with bottles of this size. To mark these very small soft drinks and mineral waters would be an onerous requirement out of all proportion to the need to protect the

consumer, who can generally see at a glance the amount of soft drink he is getting.
The hon. Gentleman no doubt feels that there is an analogy between this Amendment and one of his previous Amendments, which the House accepted, concerning intoxicating liquor. I cannot accept that there is a completely valid comparison, first because of the difficulties of dealing with carbonated fluid, and second because of the difference in the cost of the two commodities concerned. Most consumers would surely agree that there is a far greater need for quantity information on a 4 oz. bottle of gin than on a similar amount of tonic. Although I should very much like to have recommended the House to accept both the hon. Gentleman's Amendments —the hon. Gentleman has been very active and helpful during the passage of the Bill—I am afraid that I must recommend the House not to accept this Amendment on soft drinks, although I was very happy that the House accepted the Amendment on alcoholic drinks.

Mr. Bence: I am grateful for the great compliment which the hon. Gentleman has paid us by admitting that the other liquid is dangerous if drunk in excessive quantities, and it is also expensive. Soft drink is much cheaper and it is safe to drink as much as one likes. Therefore, the same sort of protection is not needed. What the hon. Gentleman has just said is a great compliment to those of us who have fought in the temperance movement all our lives. In view of what I think was a very reasonable explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 6.—(SOLID FUEL.)

Mr. Denzil Freeth: I beg to move, in page 83, line 34 after "hundredweight" to insert:
one and a quarter hundredweight".
Would it be convenient, Mr. Speaker, to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in page 83, line 44, leave out "any".

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if it is convenient to the House.

Mr. Freeth: The purpose of the two Amendments is to permit coal to be carried for retail delivery in 1¼cwt. sacks —that is, in 10 stone sacks—as well as in


the normal 1 cwt. sacks. During our discussions on Schedule 6 in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) suggested that provision should be made in the Bill to allow solid fuel to be carried in 10 stone sacks as well as in the normal 1 cwt, sacks. My hon. Friend pointed out that this was already the practice in some parts of the country and that to allow this unit would permit greater speed and economy in fuel deliveries. At that time I undertook to consider the matter but gave no specific undertaking.
After due consideration, my right hon. Friend, my hon. Friend and myself are prepared to accept this suggestion. It seems to us that the use of 1¼ cwt. sacks would permit greater efficiency and greater economy in the delivery of fuel, and I am sure the House will agree that nothing that we do in the Bill should prevent either greater efficiency or greater economy of manpower or effort. As my hon. Friend pointed out in Committee, there would be risk of abuse if lorries were allowed to carry mixed loads partly of 1¼ cwt. sacks and partly of 1¼ cwt. sacks. The Amendments will therefore ensure that the 1¼ cwt. size sack may be used only where all the sacks or containers made up on the vehicle are in that quantity. I said in Committee that the Government would consider introducing Amendments if no representations of a convincing nature were made to my right hon. Friend the President against the suggestion of my hon. Friend. I can tell the House that no such representations against the use of 10 stone sacks have been made and, therefore, I hope that the House will agree to accept the Amendments.

It being Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. I (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Question again proposed, That those words be there inserted.

Mr. Darling: The Amendments seem a sensible way out of the difficulties raised in Committee. When the proposition was first put forward I was rather reluctant to accept it until I, too, re-

ceived representations in favour of legalising the 10 stone sack and was assured that in some parts of the country this practice of selling coal in 10 stone bags has been of long standing and is extremely useful. Apparently customers want it as much as coal merchants. One appreciates that by taking coal in 10 stone as against 8 stone bags one is moving more coal and is, thereby, achieving greater efficiency. The Amendments will also prevent any jiggery pokery resulting from having different sized bags of coal on the same cart and the proposition should, therefore, be accepted.

Mr. Winterbottom: I do not share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Darling) because the Clause as drafted lends itself to abuse. If I had my way there would be only two weights included in the Clause, one so far removed from the other that it would be impossible for one to appear like the other, for similarity in this respect may lead to abuse.
I would have a 1 cwt. bag and a 28 lb. bag. Any other conception of weights merely lends itself to abuse. Although we have been told that it has been customary to sell coal in 1 cwt. and 1¼ cwt. bags, I believe that the districts in which that is done are very few in number. Since there will be no chance of inspecting the coal once it has been bagged and placed on lorries, abuse may occur because of the similarity of the two weights. A lorry might contain bags varying in weight—

Mr. Darling: No.

Mr. Winterbottom: —and it would be quite easy for abuse to occur. Coal in bags can never be weighed precisely —and I am speaking from experience—and it usually weighs about 115 1bs. per bag. It would be easy for a I cwt. bag to pass for a 1¼ cwt. bag on a lorry and, as I have said, there would be no inspection. The only way to avoid abuse is to have the two totally different weights I have suggested. If the Government insist on having a I cwt. bag, let them have it but let them also ensure that the second weight is totally different.
During the recent cold spell coal deliverers have found it difficult to get to people's homes and as a result of the difficulties which the merchants and their


customers have experienced, all sorts of weights have been sold, irrespective of the law. Coal has been sold in 20 1b., 40 1b. and ¼ cwt. quantities. I have handled some of the bags of coal that have been sold recently and in a number of cases I have questioned whether or not the weight declared has in fact been the weight finally sold.
Especially in the street which I mentioned earlier tonight, only 200 to 300 yards away from the coal depot where the principle of "put and take", as the coalmen call it, operates, this system of having about five different declared weights will give the coalmen great opportunities of doing things which up to now they have been prevented from doing,. Where it is the custom to sell coal in 11 cwt. quantities it is rare to find coal sold in 1 cwt. quantities, and where it is sold in 1 cwt. quantities it is rare to find coalmen delivering in 1¼ cwt. quantities.

Mr. Darling: Amendment provides that in the district where 1 cwt. is normally sold 1 cwt. must still be sold. In those districts where 1¼ cwt. quantities only are now sold all the bags of coal must weigh 1¼ cwt. and they cannot be changed.

Mr. Winterbottom: In those districts where 1 cwt. is sold it will be possible to sell 1¼ cwt.

Mr. Darling: No.

Mr. Winterbottom: Am I wrong?

Mr. Denzil Freeth: If the House gives us the Amendment and Parliament passes the Bill it will be possible in any district to deliver fuel made up in containers of any one of the weights mentioned in paragraph 3 (1, a) of Schedule 6 and it will be open within that area for some merchants to use one weight and some to use another, and indeed for other merchants to use a number of these different weights. But the point which we insist upon is that no lorry may be loaded with 1 cwt. sacks and 1¼ cwt. sacks.

Mr. Winterbottom: Let us get this quite clear. If the coalman is accustomed to deal with 1 cwt., if he wishes he can change to 1¼ cwt., provided that all the bags on the lorry are of 1¼ cwt.

Mr. Darling: That is right.

Mr. Winterbottom: This lends itself to abuse. If a man declares that he is selling 1 cwt. bags of coal and he has a 1¼ cwt. bag on the lorry and he delivers the 1¼ cwt. bag first he could then deliver the remaining nine bags of 1 cwt., and the customer would not be aware that he was not receiving nine 1¼ cwt. bags. This is done where bags of weights which are difficult to distinguish from one another are used.

Mr. Freeth: There are two points here. The first is that not only must the coal be made up in one of the specific quantities named in paragraph 3 (1, a) of the Schedule, but in addition the container must be marked with the net weight. Secondly, according to my information, the practice of coal merchants selling and delivering coal in 1 cwt. sacks and 1¼ cwt. sacks, but never having sacks of the two different weights on the same lorry has proved eminently satisfactory in Lincoln and there has been no complaint.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 83, line 44, leave out "any".

In page 85, line 46, after "and" insert:
the relevant goods carried on the vehicle shall include such goods made up in containers in the quantity of one and a quarter hundredweight only if the whole of the relevant goods so carried are so made up; and".

In page 86, line 23, leave out from "that" to shall "and insert the said paragraph (b)".—[Mr. Denzil Freeth.]

Schedule 7.—(MISCELLANEOUS GOODS OTHER THAN FOODS.)

Mr. D. Price: I beg to move, in page 93, line 3, to leave out other than chair nails".
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it would be convenient to take with this Amendment the next Amendment, in line 18, at the end to insert:
and notwithstanding anything in paragraph 2 of this Part of the Schedule, nails—

(i) when not pre-packed may he sold by retail by number;
(ii) may be pre-packed in or on a container marked with an indication of quantity by number".

Mr. Speaker: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Price: The effect of these two Amendments is to allow nails to be sold retail by number as well as by weight. At present, the Schedule requires that nails other than chair nails must be sold retail only by weight, or, if they are sold pre-packed, that the package must be marked with the net weight, subject in both cases to the exemption of sales in quantities of less than half an ounce.
On further consideration, we believe that this is unduly restrictive on both customer and shopkeeper. As hon. Member' know, nails are sold by weight, hut there are some kinds, particularly the larger ones, and not only chair nails, which are sold in very small quantities by number. Domestic users buying nails in small quantities often prefer to buy them by number so that they have the precise number required for the job in hand. I am sure that it is the common experience of hon. Members that, when one has a little job to do, one knows the particular size of nail one wants and one does not want to buy a lot of them, It is often convenient to buy half a dozen or a dozen. To require sales only by weight would, we feel, involve both customers and shopkeepers in unnecessary trouble. The Amendments would allow nails to be sold retail by number, or, if they are prepacked, with an indication of quantity by number, as an alternative to sale by weight. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Darling: In a sense, I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary has seized

upon this weakness in the Bill. It gives the impression that chair nails and the purpose of the second Amendment escaped our attention. This is not so. We had it in mind to suggest to our friends that, in another place, this was a matter which they might consider, since we had come to the end of our tether.
Now that we are concluding the Report stage of the Bill, I thank the Parliamentary Secretaries for the very good job they have done in trying to get all the Amendments we have suggested incorporated in the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 93, line 18, at end insert:
and notwithstanding anything in paragraph 2 of this Part of the Schedule, nails—

(i) when not pre-packed may be sold by retail by number;
(ii) may be pre-packed in or on a container marked with an indication of quantity by number ".—[Mr. D. Price.]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

ESTIMATES

Mr. Ray Mawby discharged from the Estimates Committee: Sir John Langford-Holt added.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

ROADS (SNOW CLEARANCE OPERATIONS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McLaren.]

10.15 p m.

Mr. T. W. Jones: It is fortunate for our country that the extraordinary weather which we have experienced over 10 successive weeks recently is a very rare and periodical phenomenon. The freeze-up which we experienced will probably rank as the worst in living memory. Many reasons have been given for the cause of it, but I would not subscribe to the reason advocated by an old friend of mine the other day, who assured me that we should not get a change in the weather until we had a change of Government. However, I appreciated his observation, because the Government are very expert in freezing up.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer froze up wages and salaries two years ago. We have had the freeze-up of capital investment as a result of which school teachers, railway workers, shipbuilders and steel workers were all caught in the freezing blizzard. Of course, it is now apparent that, in an effort to raise the party political temperature, the Government have decided to bring about the thaw, and the date of that will be 3rd April, when we shall have the Budget, and the balmy breezes will flow through this Chamber from the Treasury.
As I have said, the national freeze-up which recently overtook the country for 10 weeks was most exceptional. It has involved county councils in very heavy and unbearable expenditure. As a Welshman, I am concerned tonight about the large rural counties of Wales in general and of Merionethshire in particular. As the Minister is aware, the ever-increasing expenditure of county councils is being strained to breaking point. We learned from the Press last week that the Caernarvonshire bill has now topped the £5 million mark. It is equally true that every county council representing rural counties in Wales is harassed today by crippling financial obligations. Therefore, my plea tonight is on behalf of those large rural counties in Wales whose rates are already very high and which will be called upon to face considerably increased expenditure to cover the cost

of snow clearance and road repairs due to the devastating effect of the prolonged frost.
I have a feeling that my plea will not fall on deaf ears. I note that in a written reply on 31st January the Home Secretary said:
Throughout the icy spell local authorities generally have done a good job in the face of quite exceptional difficulties. The arrangements to cope with severe conditions will, of course, be reviewed by the Government in the light of this winter's experience, to see whether further improvements are practicable."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 222.]
I am aware that the Home Secretary was thinking of the problem in terms of civil defence, but I base my optimism particularly on the reply given by the Minister at the end of January. He said:
Local authorities in county areas receive Exchequer grants in respect of their expenditure on maintaining classified roads. The normal grant allocations include some provision for snow clearing, salting and gritting and the repair of frost damage. I am, however, prepared to consider sympathetically applications by these local authorities for additional allocations to take account of their unusually heavy expenditure this winter."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1963; Vol. 670, c. 168–9.]
That is fair enough as far as it goes, as were the replies given by the Minister last week in this Chamber.
There is, however, one snag. The Minister referred only to classified roads. Unfortunately for the large rural areas of which I am speaking, they are responsible for hundreds of miles of unclassified roads, the cost of the maintenance of which falls entirely on the local rates. Yet, these are the very roads which must be kept clear as they lead to the remote villages, and unless they are cleared, whatever the cost may be, the people in them will not be able to survive in the type of weather which we have had this winter.
Let us take as an example the county that I have the honour to represent, Merioneth. This county has over 900 miles of roads and, incidentally, no fewer than 232 bridges. Of these roads, 332 miles are unclassified and the maintenance of them falls entirely on the local rates. In Caernarvonshire, there are 485 miles of unclassified roads and


in Denbighshire no fewer than 751 miles. The cost of snow clearance on the unclassified roads of Merioneth will be approximately £8,000 and the cost of gritting those roads will be about £2,000. It is, therefore, safe to assume that an extra £10,000 will have to be found to deal with the unclassified roads alone, with not a penny piece of grant from the Government.
Even if there is no return of the former climatic conditions, it is estimated that the total cost of snow clearance in Merioneth will be about £65,000. I am not forgetting that, apart from trunk roads, all the remaining classified roads are only partially grant-aided. I understand that the percentage of grants is as follows: class 1, 75 per cent., class 2, 60 per cent., class 3, 50 per cent. Merionethshire has 296 miles of class 3 roads, and the cost of snow clearance and gritting on those roads alone will amount to no less than £15,000. As these roads qualify for only a 50 per cent. grant, it follows that £7,500 will have to be borne by the local rates. This is an alarming figure, as I am sure the Minister will agree.
I ask the Minister whether he is prepared, for this financial year at least, to increase the grant considerably for class 3 roads. I have found that in Denbighshire the total cost of snow clearance and repairs of class 1, class 2 and class 3 roads will be at least £163,000, of which not less than £64,300 will have to be borne by the local rates. The figures that I have given are staggering and certainly call for urgent Government action.
When a calamity overtakes any foreign country too poor to meet the cost, I am proud to think that Great Britain is always to the fore to assist such a country financially. It is right and proper that we should do so. It is in the same spirit that I appeal to the Government to render special assistance to these harassed county councils in Wales which are struggling to fulfil their obligations.
On the question of payment for snow clearance and frost damage, for which high-lying rural counties are responsible, it is inequitable that the full expense should have to be borne by such counties when more fortunate low-lying

counties, often with greater financial resources, suffer considerably less financial loss.
Comparison might be made with the hill farming subsidy. Indeed, the Agriculture (Improvement of Roads) Act, 1955, has been gratefully accepted by upland counties for the purpose of improving unclassified and unadopted roads. The question of heavy and exceptional maintenance such as has occurred during the past winter, and particularly during the recent 10 weeks, is still unresolved. The full cost of the work falls upon the ratepayers. People do not anticipate such weather as we have had this year, and it is not estimated for at the beginning of the financial year. Therefore, the full cost of clearing the snow and repairing the effect of frost damage falls entirely on local ratepayers. I need not remind the House that we have heard a great deal only this week about rates and the increases in rates.
In a winter such as this, the county council is obliged to use the grant intended for maintenance and repair work to meet the cost of snow clearing. The money for which the county council budgeted has had to be used to clear the snow and repair the roads. Unless further grant is forthcoming, men will have to be laid off because there will be nothing in the till with which to pay them. It is a serious situation nowadays to find the unemployment figures still soaring, and this will happen in these rural areas. What is more, these men are skilled in their work. Once they leave the employment of the county council, it will be difficult to persuade them to leave some other employment which they might obtain to go back to the roads.
The Minister might consider the possibility of heavily subsidising the purchase of salt so that the county councils could be encouraged to store sufficient stocks of this commodity at various points in their counties at the beginning of winter—indeed, in the middle of summer. It would help that industry and certainly, if it was subsidised heavily, it would be a great encouragement for county councils to have the salt ready at hand to tackle the problem immediately it occurs instead of, as happened during the recent 10 weeks, many places being


unable to get salt when the snow was two or three feet deep.
It would not be too fantastic to introduce even electric road heating on steep hills and particularly on bridge approaches. I understand that the cost is about £2 per square yard. Bridges have proved themselves to be very dangerous during the 10 weeks of bad weather. I am sure that an experiment of this kind would pay for itself. It is done at football grounds and I understand that the Everton Football Club is about to do it, so that never again will weather such as we have had prevent matches being played.
I appeal to the Minister with great confidence to take extraordinary measures to deal with an extraordinary situation. I trust that in his reply he will make a declaration this evening which will cause a ray of spring sunshine lo cast itself through the gloom of our council chambers in Wales.

10.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): In the course of what I think the House will agree was a very felicitous speech the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. T. W. Jones) has given the Government not only the credit for having caused the bad weather but the credit for being able to bring spring a little nearer than perhaps it would otherwise be. It is the first time I have ever heard the Government blamed for the weather, although we get blamed for everything else that goes wrong in the country.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: What about 1947?

Mr. Hay: I welcome the opportunity given by the Adjournment debate to say something about the problems which have been presented to the local authorities by the recent abnormal bad weather. I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for having given me notice of some of the points he intended to raise and, more particularly, of the figures he intended to quote.
According to all the experts, this has been the severest winter, at least in the centre of England and Wales, since 1740. En all parts of the country roads were blocked by snow for days on end. The South and South-West were particularly hard hit. Devonshire had more

snow than in any year since 1814, and, as will be remembered, many towns and villages were cut off and found that the only method of communication, whether for supply or for relief, was by helicopter. Further north, severe winters like this are less exceptional, but, even so, in only four comparable years in this century was the weather as bad, and in one of them, 1929, there was comparatively little snow.
So it was not, therefore, surprising that there was a considerable interruption of normal transport services both by road and by rail, and on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and myself I should like to put on record in the House a tribute, in which I am sure all hon. Members will share, to all those who worked so tirelessly and for such long hours and for such long periods to clear snow and ice and to restore communications and to keep them open. Some people worked for 15 hours or more at a stretch—without a break—and some of them for many days on end, and the nation owes them a very deep debt of gratitude.
I turn now to the position of the local authorities on whom the brunt of snow clearing fell during the bad weather and on whom the burden of road repair to put right the damage done is now falling, should like to put on record the Answers which my right hon. Friend and I have given to recent Parliamentary Questions, and I hope that these Answers have given them some reassurance. I should like to remind the House in particular of the Answer which I gave to a Question on 6th March, the text of which perhaps I may be allowed to quote:
We have invited the county councils to let us have estimates of the additional expenditure they will have incurred on classified roads in the present quarter because of the exceptionally severe weather. We will then consider, as my right hon. Friend has already promised, what additional grant assistance can be given. It is too soon to expect any worthwhile information about frost damage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1963; Vol. 673, c. 386.]
That remains the position, except that I can now add that local authorities have since been notified of their grant allocations for next year. Their extra expenditure will be a first charge against these allocations. At the same time they have been invited to tell us if they want more. Some of them may not, for they may prefer to reduce their programmes of


normal maintenance and minor improvement and thereby lighten the burden on the rates. For many, if not for all of them, there should be some saving because much of the routine work which would normally have been done in January and February could not be done owing to the bad weather. But I repeat that when we know if the local authorities need extra money we shall consider to what extent extra allocations of grant can be made.
Before coming to the issues of classified and unclassified roads mentioned by the hon. Member, I should like to say something about trunk roads, where snow clearing is done by the local authorities acting as the Minister's agents for maintenance. They are paid at the beginning of each quarter for the work they are expected to do during the three months, and they get the full cost, plus 6 per cent. for their administrative overheads. Agent authorities plan their year's programme in such a way as to keep some money in reserve for winter maintenance in the last quarter of the year, but this year, for obvious reasons, they did not earmark enough. Returns made by our divisional road engineers at the end of February show that, taking the country as a whole—and this, I repeat, is only for trunk roads—an extra sum of £868,000—over three-quarters of a million £s—will probably be needed by the end of March, and that figure takes account of savings by local authorities where normal maintenance work could not he undertaken in the bad weather.
Arrangements have now been made for the necessary payments to be made from the Vote during the current financial year, and trunk road repair work done in the next financial year will be a charge to the Vote provision for that year. When we know how much extra work is entailed, and how far the regular programme of maintenance and minor improvement has had to be reduced as a result, we shall consider, in conjunction with the Treasury, whether extra money should be made available.
I turn now to the classified roads. Here, as the hon. Member has said, grants are paid for all maintenance work, including winter maintenance, at a rate which depends on the classification of the road. The hon. Gentleman gave the classification figures—either 75 per cent.,

60 per cent. or 50 per cent.—and the local highway authority bears the remaining cost. That, of course, does not apply in London or in the county boroughs. Snow clearance and similar work is normally included in "maintenance" for this purpose.
Local authorities plan their expenditure for the whole year in relation to their allocation at the beginning of each financial year in April and, again, they earmark part of the money for winter maintenance. Here, too, they will obviously not have earmarked enough for this winter. So, if they claim extra money for their exceptional heavy expenditure on winter maintenance this year, they, will claim it at the end of March, and in will be a charge on our Vote provision next year. They already know of their grants allocations for next year, and we have been able to allocate to them the full amount that they asked for last September. As I have said, if they want more money, they can let us know, and we will consider their requests. But some may prefer to cut back their normal programmes of maintenance and minor improvement to avoid burdening the rates.
As to unclassified roads, about which the hon. Member principally spoke, it is true, as he said, that there is here no direct grant aid for counties, either Welsh or English. It is also true that this position may bear somewhat hardly on some authorities, but there are, I think, two points that have to be borne in mind. The first is that the cost has to be borne somewhere, and by someone, and it would have to be established beyond any doubt at all, I think, that special grants would be required by the Government. It would have to be shown that the burden on the ratepayers was such that the taxpayer should take it on. That would be rather difficult to establish in view of the very widespread area over which the expenditure was incurred, because virtually the whole of the country suffered in this bad weather. Moreover, it is important to remember that local authorities can spread the load by raising loans, and we will consider any application for loan sanction which is made through our divisional road engineers in the normal way.
The second point to bear in mind is that many local authorities will, in fact, receive rate deficiency grant. This is particularly true of some of the Welsh counties. The hon. Member for Merioneth


said that that county has spent £65,000 on snow clearance, £8,000 of it on unclassified roads. We calculate that a reasonable estimation of how the total of £65,000 would be split between direct Exchequer grants and the county's own expenditure is that the Exchequer would pay £40.000, and Merioneth £25,000. But the county gets rate deficiency grant at the rate of 55·7 per cent., so that the county rates are likely to have to bear, not £25,000 but only £11,000. The Exchequer will bear the remaining £14,000 through the rate deficiency grant. So the total borne by the Exchequer in direct grants and rate deficiency grant will be about £54,000 out of the total of £63,000 which the county actually spent.
I have similar figures for Denbighshire which the hon. Gentleman also mentioned where the rate deficiency grant is 28·2 per cent., and here the rateborne expenditure seems to be somewhere around £71,000 out of the £163,000 spent. This can be contrasted with some of the county boroughs where no direct grants are made for maintenance and minor improvements, and no rate deficiency grant is payable either.
Against that, of course, the rateable value is probably higher in most county boroughs and the capacity to pay is greater than in sparsely populated areas like Merioneth. But, on balance, I think that things will work out pretty well.
The House will be interested to know that we are reviewing the lessons to be learned from these recent experiences. Our divisional road engineers are reporting on the situation in their areas. Inside the Ministry of Transport we have set up a working group under the chairmanship of a deputy-secretary to review the whole situation, including organisation, technical standards for preventing ice and for clearing snow and investigating the adequacy and the location of the physical resources, such as depots, snowploughs and similar equipment, deposits of salt and grit, and so on. We shall also be reviewing the responsibility and the performance of

the local authorities to see whether extra help or assistance or improvement is needed.
If possible, we must ensure that if by chance next winter we are faced again with similar conditions to those through which we have passed this year we are ready, and that our organisation is adequate to make use of the lessons which we have learned from our recent experiences.
May I in the few moments that remain say a word about the other point in particular that the hon. Gentleman made concerning the use of electric road heating? As I think he knows, we already use this on an experimental basis on steep hills and bridge approaches in some places. We have about a dozen sites up and down the country where this is done, though none of them is to be found in the rural areas.
Installation costs are not high if electric heating is installed when the road is constructed. They came out at about £3 a square yard and not £2 as the hon. Gentleman said. But that assumes that there is a supply of electricity adjacent to the site. However, if we have to install the heating on an existing road it is more expensive because we have to dig up the road and make it up again after installing the heating. The cost then comes out at £4 a square yard, and the running costs are high. The Hammersmith flyover has cost £3,000 this winter, so for those reasons I think there is a limit to what we can be expected to do in using the technique, although we shall not ignore it in suitable cases.
I welcome the opportunity which I have had tonight to put on record the facts about our experiences. Finally, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the subject, I hope that what I have said will be of some value in reassuring the local authorities throughout the country.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.